Thursday, December 29, 2005

David Wojnarowicz

The studies stimulated from feminist (art history) discussions have provoked a deep rethinking of what could be counted as appropriated or at least, to consider the reasons why such enquiries were being addressed.

The lack of explanation on why the desire of females was neglected due since the articulation of speech of eroticism was uttered on behalf of male heterosexual gaze, prompted out an attempt to create a new imagery. As a representation of the female desire (whether straight or homosexual) efforts to emerge as a female gaze over the feminine tries to bring up a female lingo (essentialism).

The spinal nerve of the question lays on how to make historical constraints visible.
For the contemporary (thinker) artist to give use of the historical tradition of art isn’t enough. It is crucial to endorse a reflection on what perverts representation as much as what allows it.

There is a large spectrum of artists dealing with the subject of homosexuality on arts. Few do so in a way that you have to proceed to a wider re-evaluation not strictly of the elements that have no language in a way that can be expressed, but of the invisible elements of the repressed. In fact there is this clear connection with gender/desire representation and censure - as part of a (locus-tempo) context and mark-point of wider connections that encompass the social spectrum. I guess I am trying to pull out this notion of the invisible which has become farther more interesting than what is being revealed. While there’s censure there’s a manifestation which implies a relation with un autre that feels in some way the need to seduce the other by denying his position. The principle of alterity responds at first at a level of the desire. The evidence of censure is therefore the authoritarian evidence of simultaneously desire and suppression.

Thursday, December 08, 2005

«Communication isn’t what you came for»

The next fanzine from Senhorio will be named Mister and is related with the artist business. I attempted to eschew the common stand points used as representation of what the task of creating should or not be.
Following the ideas on the problem of political representation I articulate the results towards the desire to propose a kind of illustration of a narrative which in some manner is describing a political image. Political since involves the pervasion of the constitutive right of an-other; political since written word is more than a quote more a statement.
The core of a statement against the facade of communication. Not against dialogue: against pervasive and omnipresence of the playful nature of image nowadays.
The process of creating an image tends quite often to illustrate some point of view and therefore establishes itself as a citation. More than image, by bringing up text as the included reason d´etre of the image, there’s an emerging question that has always haunted me: when does a text explain what an image shows?
An aspect of this problem: the text isn’t here to explain anything. As part of the image, the text brings up a context in symbiosis. That’s why the image produced by the artist if wanting to get outside the nature of media communication has to neglect the need for becoming illustrative. To reveal in some way isn’t enough anymore. Sometimes you need to make it harder to get, or even impossible.
A work of art must keep the willing to get in touch and create strategies to appeal the presence of an-other into her. But by refusing the task of keeping itself different from the demand for communication it refuses aside the very limits of art creation.

«Help me out here»

Rules for political art practice:
• the personal is political
• the politics of authenticity
• manufactured selves
• I’m against it
• a club of your own
• club house
• the scene
• no rules
• sabotage
• for love, not money
• participatory culture
• do it yourself
• the politics of form
• discovery
please add your rules