Oppressive Strategies
See also:  [Art Talk, by Cindy Nemser
           [Towards a Post-Modern Psuedo Feminist Tradtion]
          -[Feminism]-

On this page:  {Intro}
               {Feminist Art}
               {Gay Art}
               {References - OpCite
               {The Usual Suspects}


   

Oppressive Strategies:  Intro

  In order to destroy, enslave, or merely denigrate (NB)
  some one - the first step is to make from people into THINGS.



Case Study

The GigaOm show.


Source file:  http://videos.revision3.com/gigaom/0007/gigaom--0007--digital--large.h264.mov

          http://videos.revision3.com/gigaom/0007/gigaom--0007--digitral-high.mp3

  -[]-


  All content for Voices is selected by, 
  and/or solicited by, the editors of 
  All Things Digital. We do not publish 
  unsolicited or over-the-transom submissions.



  -[]-

 Shameless promotion...? or just not "over the transom" ?

    -[My new song]-

  -[]-

  -[]-

  -[]-

  -[]-

  -[]-








The Usual Suspects


See also:

Nancy Spero () (Documentarian: Violence against women




The Usual Suspects

Judy Chicago
Jenny Holzer
Cindy Sherman
Nancy Spero

-^_6

Chronology

?time? Goddess creates the universe.



Notes
(this section only)


[1] Earlier in Isaak's text, she gives a quote by Holzer:

    TO write a quality cliche you have to come up
    with something new. [as quoted in Isaak, P. 32]

But, then what IS a clice? 

All language is pattern - and if we take the work of
the Brother's Grimm and Sausure as read - we know that
the language can not change any faster than the people
using it can adjust. [There is a bril short SF story by
Robert Sheckley where language (on a alien planet) 
changes not only constantly, but consistently).] 

Regardless, we recognise words a quaint when we know of them
but no longer use them frequently. I would go so far as to
say that this is where the word is just about to pass out
of usage entirely (or possibly to mutate into a differenent
or more restricted usage). For example in the SF film
"Superman", the character "Clark Kent" (portrayed by the late,
great Christophere Reeves) uses the word "Nifty" to which
the character "Lois Lane" (Kidder ??name??) replies, "You
know most people don't feel comfortable using the word 
"nifty" these days"  - not an exact quote.

This brings up two points: The use of such value judgements to
"put someone down" (ie, to derrogate, denigrate, etc) - language
as social weapon; ie, as weapon to socially marginialise another
person or peson(s), groups, ethnic or otherwise - and this doesn't
even bring gesture, imitation, mockery, etc into the picture.

Also, the use of such antiquated language as a marker of the person.
This goes back to Shaw's whole point in "Pygmallian" - "she condemns
herself with every word that she utters" - possibly not an exact quote.

But, then we come to pun and cliche. A pun is slightly "less" than 
the cliche (although certainly puns may evolve (devolve?) into cliches).
But, the cliche has at its heart a witty observation - and of course
being so, and easy to remember (eg, "All men are dogs"), it will no
doubt "bear repetition" as Twain comments concerning new and viable
words (in "The Diaries of Adam and Eve", as I recall).

Thus, we are imbedded into a world that is almost completely artificial
and constructed by not only verbal and visual cliches but by the very
structure of language and its usage with our (their? any?) culture. Thus,
we (and i think this pretty obvious - nothing new here) - we create our
reality out of thise little un-examined snippets of cliche: And we don't
even recognise them for what they are. When we reflect back on Marshall
McCluan's ??sp?? seemingly contradticion of defining "hot" and "cool"
media (tv is cool, newspapers are hot). We begin to understand what we
have inherrited in the post-Guttenberg generation.

TV (radio, cd's, pod-cast's, etc) all program us without (for the most
part) any conscious editting of the information as it comes in. [Again,
there is an excellent episode of "The Prisoner" (entitled "The General"
as i recall) to this effect. Thus, ALL of us (even the movers and 
shakers) are embedded in this text of things that is constantly not
only re-programming but more importantly re-enforcing our "view" of
the world. We "see" the world not only in terms of high speed images
that go directly into the quite primitive visual cortices of the brain
- who no more "know" what they are seeing than the proverbial Adamsian
tealeaf knows the history of the East India Company. When we see a 
violent film (thinking of "A Clockwork Orange" by Anthtony Burgess,
with a fairly faithful rendition into film by Stanley Kubrick here),
then our brain is processing this as REAL violence; and hence the 
purported (supported by stat evidence) that we become desensitised
to violence, etc, etc.

So, what of text? Especially (these days) spoken text? Again, we see
that written text (hot) is superceeded by spoken text (cool) - i 
really wish McCluan had (like Franklin) reversed his notation. But,
i think that the point is clear:

   We create our own reality by choosing what input 
   to put into the old 3-pound universe (ie, "the brain").
   Part of this is cultural: In the aftermath of 9/11
   a tribe of Africans presented the people of New York
   with a small herd of cattle - in an interview, they
   said that they couldn't imagine a building so tall 
   that if you fell out of a window, you would actually
   be killed.

   We can choose the programming to do this; but, often
   we find it easier to turn on the "boob tube" (genus,
   species, Optico Monstroso) and just let it fill our
   tiny little hominid brain with whatever tripe is 
   pouring out.

   On a personal note of having (specifically) observed
   feminists in general, they tend to NOT just turn on
   the tube and take the rubbish as is. This also turns
   out to be true of poets, writers, and various other
   odd balls that *clearly* should be rounded up for
   re-education. 

   In closing, from the (fairly badly rendered even for
   a sequel - i hate cliches like the plague!;) film
   "Adams Family 2", when the kids are to be indoctrinated
   they are put in the "happy hut" and Wednesday ??name??
   sez: "Don't wach Pugsley!!" to which he ??actor-name??
   replies, "But, they're Disney".

   Beware the mouse - and that's just the part of the matrix
                      that you CAN see.

(Whereupon, the left leaning, and almost always inebriated
 nehr-do-well, "artist" - you call THAT art? - decided to
 get up and see what could be patched togehter from the
 almost always empty cupboards in the way of a "meal").

nite all; and tips towel three times to Liz Story where-ever
          she might be:  This essay was made possible by
          the following inputs:

          a) A black enameled folding chair with an extra
             pillow for support,

          b) A rather ratty lap top of which the (-^_6) keys
             do not work - i have to cut and past them in each time!,

          c) A rahter shakey book case with the shelves removed, 
             which serves as the "current Editor's Desk",

          d) a cup of Dollar General brand "cola with caffiene",

          5) A paperback copy of "Feminism & Contemporary Art"
             which i found on the bargain shelf.

     and  f) Liz Story's "Toy Soldiers" on infinite repeat.

Peace to all,

Frank.

No iconospheres, ducks, or text objects were injured during
the production of the current work.

BEGIN EXIT DANSE

  JH sez:  "Exceptional people deserve special concessions".

  Which i have always remembered as "... special consideration".

To which i can think will *surely* apply to me: considerations
such as prison, torture, or worse....

but suddenly, a pair of ducks nestled down under some shrubbery
and the wind began to blow UN-believably. Yep even the twister
wanted nothting to do with the like of me:  "Duck and Cover".

(fade to tuesday)

END DANSE?  NEVER!


{Return back to the TEXT}




References - OpCite
(Latin Work(s) sighted)


[Ferguson 1986], P. 113]

Ferguson, Bruce. 1986. "Wordsmith: An Interview with Jenny Holzer".
          in "Art in America". No. 74: 108-115.
-^_6



-^_6

Jameson


Jameson, Fredric. 1972. The Prision House of Language: A 
         Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian
         Formalism. Princeton, NewJersey, Terra. Princeton
         Univ. Press.

I have often wondered what passes for *Itallics* in Korean?

Additional refs:
-^_6
  -[>SF (genre)]-
  -[>SF (genre)]-
  Need entry:  literature/jameson-fredric.html" ... etc

Note: Please use the BACK key on your browser to return to the TEXT.

END BLOCK QUOTE