Thursday, December 29, 2005
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.