Four Rooms of One's Own
Catalogue Essay by Lorna Healy
This essay aims to explore the poetics and politics of the exhibition
title
(In)Visibilities through linking it with performativity, representation
and Institutional space.
Contemporary queer (in)visibilities are a product of their
performative histories. (1) The
'50s butch dyke, the leathermen of the
'60s, all effected a number of operations on their own bodies, their
conduct and ways of being which wilfully alienated or visually
differentiated them from mainstream society and very often their
parent gay community. The courage involved in forcing people to
see/fear/ desire at the risk of violence can not be underestimated.
The transformative power of dress codes to the body and its
performances has rich genealogies within gay and lesbian histories.
Artwork is catching up with these histories; the last ten years has
seen an increase in the amount of art work which through seeking
alternatives to reproducing colonised meanings around the body have
recognised the power of clothing to indicate
the absent body and to
reconceptualise how we think about the body. (2)
Such frock work can
be seen in Slater's painterly unpicking of the signs of 50's high
femininity and Rowley's exploration of gender as multi delicitous
masquerade. Beirne's stitched torso's map out how we are sutured into
the fabric of society through our body techniques. But reasserting
visibility and identity is a constant process, you have to keep
dressing up and going out. According to Judith Butler there are no
core (select from one or a combination of the following) gendered/
sexed/ classed inner selves. Identity hinges on the compulsion to
repeatedly reenact or reassert the self. In this essay the context
of
our theatrics is important:
How and where I play at being one (a lesbian) is the way in which
"being" gets established, instituted, circulated and confirmed.
(3)
The spatial State of play for "Irish" gay and lesbian subjectivity
is
changing. What constitutes the "Irish" gay and lesbian subject
is
being questioned and re-figured. Through globalization and its
technological acceleration, transcultural links are being forged with
other spaces, creating new discourses which are not entirely
restricted to physical place and therefore do not necessarily align
themselves smoothly with the narrative of the nation. Such a link may
have been forged by the OUTART Committee by extending their invitation
to artists such as McDermott & McGough, Slater, White, Zauner and
Rowley who either work or originate from outside of Ireland. Mick
Wilson's essay extends the disjuncture between sexuality and the
nation when he writes "to identify the concerns of lesbians and
gays
with the various elements of nationalistic and anti-colonialist
ideologies, is a questionable if strategic fiction". In terms
of
cultural representations of the self I would add that the visible
boundaries of self and community need no longer terminate at the
threshold of the skin or in the choice of clothing or bar but are in
dialogue with other culturally created spaces like that of the web
site, the art gallery, etc.
(There is a larger cultural context surrounding) the story of
eroding boundaries in the real and the virtual, the animate
and the inaminate, the unitary and the multiple self, which is
occurring both in advanced fields of scientific
research and in the
patterns of everyday life ... we shall see evidence of fundamental
shifts in the way we create and experience human
identity. (4)
The State's relationship to our spatial play may be changing but what
exactly are we playing at? The performative gymnastics of gay and
lesbian identities are often read as a poor copy of an original and
compulsory heterosexuality. Butler argues that heterosexual
performativity is like a dog chasing its own tail; a phantasmatic
ideal of heterosexual identity exists which
"is produced by the
imitation of its effect" but the performance constantly fails
to
naturalise this ideal fully, so it is in endless repetition of itself.
(5) So if the entire spectrum of sexualities
are performative then
surely we are all equal masqueraders (re: eejits)? There exist regimes
of power and surveillance however which frame certain strands of the
masquerade as perverted and thus the players
are ostracised and
punished. A Foucauldian reading would suggest that this power is not
only negative but can also induce more transgressive pleasures. (6)
The resistive kitschification of heterosexual stereotypes through
camping it up, then may involve the aforementioned element of bravery
but also that of pleasure. Western dynamics
of desire and pleasure
circle around the act of looking and being looked at. "Sexuality"
then
is constructed "in the field of vision" or (in)visibility.
(7)
Through a semiotic of kitsch the visual
field can also be ruptured to
expose the primal myth of compulsory heterosexuality as phantasmatic.
(8) Aesthetics of excess reach dizzying
heights each year through the
spectacle of the Gay Pride March. The politics of en masse excess
could may be traced back to the mediaeval carnival.
For Bakhtin, carnival's strength arose out of its place in
class culture: a transgressive space, but
acknowledged and
permitted by the Law, through which the resentments and envy
of class hatred could be acted out in ritual or metaphor. (9)
The carnival is a liminal and ludic stage in the traditional narrative
structure which is, however, ultimately conservative due to its
temporal nature, as it finally intended to justify the status quo in
an objectively conservative manner. Each year O'Connell Street is
transformed and the Natural Order is reversed through this sanctioned
riot, but when the party is over, the marchers retreat back into their
relatively (in)visible private spheres. This example hopefully brings
to life Butler's point regarding the political centrality of the space
of our play. As an exercise try holding a personal Pride march in your
living room and see if it makes the headlines. The degrees to which
personal pleasures are political hinge upon space.
Very good but what of the business of making art? How does this relate
to performativity? Performativity and representation could be
paralleled with the differences between marching in your living room
and in the main street. Representation creates meanings which are
communicated within more public spheres; an extension of the
performance of the "I". In the light of the recent emphasis
on
diversity it is a joke to suggest that the experiences of one queer
could represent or have authority over the multitudinal experiences
of
all queers. For the political subject representations
are never
ideologically neutral and are always inscribed with the desire and
the
subject position of the Author, who can not afford the luxury of being
For "women" (gay and lesbians) who "have not had the
same
historical relation of identity to origin,
institution and production
that men (hom(m)osexual society) have had" the hypothesis that
the
Author is dead "prematurely forecloses the question of identity
for
Another link or way into performativity as art making is provided
through the psychoanalytic theories of Lucie Irigaray on the "dancing
space". Through the research of Hilary Robinson it is suggested
that
the whirling motion of little girl's play is linked to her non linear
relationship with language and ultimately
the language of paint or in
this case peinture feminine. Thus, acts of signification within art
making like the gesture "will always be marked by bodily specificity"
Representation as an extension of the "I" comes hand in hand
with
questions of readership or consumption.
As viewers the joy of
recognising ourselves within the cultural landscape or in mainstream
representations can not be underestimated. It is vital for affirmation
of existence. (13) Because of their importance
to our sense of
belonging representations are the site of hegemonic struggle and thus
hopefully change.
But where to do this "change"? Virgina Woolf wanted a room.
(14)
Irate New Yorkers have been know to shout "get a room" at
frisky couples on
the subway. You simply need a room to do your stuff in (practitioners
will be painfully familiar with this). Woolf's room works on two
levels. There is the actual physical space and there is the Symbolic
Room. The latter refers to the societal space that needs to be cleared
out in the Symbolic hotel in order for production to occur. Conditions
of production involve a complexity of interconnected factors, such
as;
a nurturing language, institutional support, material comfort, peers,
time. Well Virginia, check this; we have
four. This Room is not
usually reserved for carnival goers. (Pl)(st)aying in the Symbolic
hotel or just having a physical room, marks the difference between
dancing in the Powder Bubble or in JJ Smith's. (15)
But this is daft of course; have we have forgotten about the dangers
of assimilation? Surely, "they" will destroy "our"
pleasure and "our"
politics? In reference to "their" double repression of lesbian
meanings, frequently, feminist breath gets shallow with anxiety at
the
thought of Her invisibility. Lesbianism doesn't even rate Symbolic
signification. Such uneasiness surrounding assimilation is for good
reason too, if we were to momentarily take an Irigarian stance on
sexual difference. Irigaray describes the dominant phallic economy
as
hom(m)osexual and rooted in singularity -- of the (male) sexual organ.
The exchanges upon which patriarchal society are based rely on
repression of difference and thus "take place exclusively among
men"
and that "this means the very possibility of a sociocultural order
requires hom(m)osexuality as its organising principle. Overt masculine
homosexuality is subversive" because
it openly interprets the law
according to which society operates; once the phallus becomes merely
an instrument of pleasure it loses its power. (16)
Such theories
around sexual difference have been critiqued as heterosexist however
as they constantly refer back and are paralysed by their own terms,
ie. man/ woman. Similarly as Wilson's catalogue essay describes, the
discourse of Other sexualities "continues to be fundamentally
defined
and structured around straightness"
In order to prise open the debate I would like at this point, to
suggest a shift in focus away from the polemic movements of us / them,
mainstream / marginal, and inside / outside. Marginalised existences
are
never outside of ideology. We live in a society so we are always
inside ideology. According to Teresa de
Lauretis the political agent
also recognises many of their personal or unrecorded experiences in
the "space off". (17) This refers
to that which is invisible, but
inferred by the frame or by mainstream representations. Within this
blind spot of representation lies the affirmative positivity of the
agent's politics. In terms of representation, this may involve imaging
the not yet imaginable. Thus the movement of the political agent in
not that of inside / outside but that of present / future. For example,
the discourse surrounding "woman" as subject and not object
of
desire, the gaze, the fetish, etc is one which is just emerging. Mo
White's work performatively probes these possibilities and extends
upon or concretises what was formerly merely implied. If we are to
place the remaining work under the ambiguous lens of the show's title
(in)visiblites then the renegotiation of existing visibilities is
inferred in the linguistic appropriations of Dermot and Gough, the
sartorial reframing of Veronica Slater, the hypperreality of James
Dunbar's simulcrum landscape and in the
dramatic exaggerations of
Andrew Fox's drawings. Such counter-strategies locate themself within
the complexities and ambivalences of representation itself, and tries
to contest it from within. (18)
The domestic work of mapping the (in)visible is insinuated in the
memory work of Paul Rowley, the other bodies of Christina Zauner which
are made uncanny through the close up, and the visceral pastiches of
Michael Beirne. De Lauretis would suggest
that to inhabit both the
visible and invisible representational space, to live in those
coexisting and contradictory terms, is the positionality of the
political subject. (19) Politicisation
then does not always occur
through making positive representations of queerness but also happens
through living in the space of double knowing of both the invisible
and the visible spaces of representation. One of the key political
moves of this essay then, is to suggest a conversation change away
from the paralysing binaries of straight / queer, man / woman and moving
the subject on to the two fold representational strategies at hand;
that of undoing the visible so that we may re-do the (in)visible.
Getting four Rooms or the institutional support for such
(in)visibilities marks a point of departure in the discursive
formation of Irish gay and lesbian identity. By discourse Foucault
means "a group of statements which
provide a language for talking
about - a way of representing that knowledge about a particular
historical moment. (20) The "homosexual"
then is a specific kind of
social subject which is produced through discourse. The discursive
subject position created around homosexuality is in a state of
constant flux, rupture and disturbance, we have had the inverts, the
predators, the gays, the queers... A discursive formation sustains
a
regime of truth around that subject position. In this case the
addition of Institutional support as opposed
to repression to the
Irish discursive stew of queerness, marks a point of departure in a
discursive formation (however temporal) and thus creates new regimes
of truth whereupon new subject positions may be created. (21)
The final disruptive step, within this essay, of the phallogocentric
logic of "us" / queer and "them" / Institute is
achieved through
extending Foucault's discursive shifts to the process of
metramorphosis. Within psychoanalytic theory if castration is the
defining process of phallogocentric order, then metramorphosis is that
of the matrixial order. The matrix is a ground breaking theory as it
provides an alternative structure for psychological development to
that of the phallic order. It is based on the prenatal state which
can
co-exist alongside the phallic order. The matrix and metramorphosis
is
a rich resource as it can also provide a model for difference theory:
Metramorphosis is the process of change in borderlines and
thresholds ... (those) conceived are continually transgressed or
dissolved, thus allowing the creation of new ones. (22)
As aforementioned queer identities are altered by the addition of
Institutional support but how is the Art
Institute metramorphosised?
As John Berger wrote in 1972, we approach the work of art with
predetermined value systems of beauty, truth and ultimately authority.
(23) These universals serve to justify
art histories systematic
exclusion of marginalised identities. Since the 60's concerted
political efforts have been made by the likes of gay, lesbian, black
and feminist groups to try to counter art's authority and ideological
purity. If you are looking for the artistic truths about the real
secret of gay identity then this is not the space. OUTART are not
"out" to any particular notion of fixed lesbian and gay identity.
As
Wilson's essay points out "we may want our rights, our liberty,etc."
but the question as to "who WE are is also posed".
This exhibition destabilises its own authority on both the grounds
of
queerness and art. The work in the show suggests a decoding of
existing and visible representations surrounding queerness and an
encoding of (in)visible or inferred meanings. The space does not
command a fixed athorative gaze but rather a series of fragmented
looks which are constantly interrupted in order to make spaces for
the
viewer. The open ended nature of these performative representations
hopefully will offer the choice to discursively invest in whatever
space makes most sense to you .... or alternately you could go for
a
drink instead.
As the latter suggests going for a jar might seem far preferable to
reading this essay with its lofty and seemingly unproblematic concerns
with theory and the gallery space which can be easily targeted as
boring, elitist and irrelevant. I will make one last stab at
disrupting the either / or approach to the question of choosing high
or
popular culture, theoretical or ground level political strategies.
The
concerns are interconnected, we need it all.
Footnotes
(1) Queer in the context of this essay is strategic and temporal and
does not seek to cover over difference and conflict. return
(2) See the work of Beverly Semmes, Jana Steirback, Mary Kelly, etc.
return
(3) Judith Butler, Imitation and Gender Insubordination,
1985 in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, H.Abelove,
M.A.Barale & D.Halperin eds., Routledge,
London, 1993, pp.311. return
(4) S.Turkle, Life on the Screen: identity in the age of the Internet,
1995,
in Identity and Difference, K.Woodward eds., 1997,
Open University, London, pp.315. return
(5) Judith Butler, ibid, pp.313. return
(6) Michel Foucault, 1980, Power / Knowledge,
Brighton, Harvester, pp.119. return
(7) The quote marks refer to Jacqueline Rose, Sexuality in the
Field of Vision, 1986, London, Verso. In her approach she uses
psychoanalysis, semiotics and film theory to argue for the
importance of sexual difference and fantasy as key concepts
within contemporary theory. return
(8) Jacqueline Rose, ibid, pp.227/8. return
(9) Laura Mulvey, 1989, Visual and Other Pleasures, London,
MacMillan Press, pp.167. She is referring to Michel Bakhtin, Rabelais
and his World, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1968. return
(10) The death of the author refers to the post structuralist claims
by
Roland Barthes (1977) and Michel Foucault (1979) that the author
could "no longer justify the the "natural authority"
of his Speech"
(Borsa, 1990). return
(11) My brackets, from Borsa, Frida Kahlo: Marginalization and the
Critical Female Subject, 1990, pp.106). She is quoting Nancy Miller,
Changing The Subject: Authorship, Writing and the Reader, (1986). return
(12) Griselda Pollock, 1996, Avant-Gardes & Partisans Reviewed,
Manchester,
`Manchester University Press, pp.282. However Hilary Robinson was the
first to offer us the potential contribution of Lucie Irigary1s
writings, especially in a paper entitled "Gesture in Psychoanalysis".
Hilary has been researching this alongside sexual difference theory
and an analysis of painting in a doctorate at the University of Leeds.
Papers given University of Leeds, 25 November 1994 and at the Museum
of Modern Art Oxford, 12 October 1995. return
(13) For a lively debate surrounding the issues at stake within
popular culture's recent fascination with lesbianism, see Hamer and
Budge eds., The Good, the Bad and the Gorgeous, 1994, California, Pandora.
return
(14) Virginia Woolf, 1929, A Room of One's Own, New York:
Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich. return
(15) J.J.Smiths refers to the small upstairs room of a bar on
Wexford Street, Dublin. [Ireland] For much of the 1980's it served
as the
only constant space where lesbians could meet.
It was demonized by the press and eventually folded. Powederbubble
is a
more recent and visually sophisticated Dublin phenomena. On a regular
basis
the queers occupy a Room or a mainstream space. Kitsch hedonisms are
heightened through the spectacles of performance,
computerised simulcrums, etc. return
(16) The quotes are from Jonathan Dollimore, 1991, Sexual Dissidence,
Oxford,
Clarendon Press, pp.250. The original Irigaray text is This Sex Which
is Not One, trans. Porter & Burke (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1985). return
(17) Teresa de Lauretis, 1987, Technologies of Gender,
London, Macmillan Press, pp.25. return
(18) Stuart Hall, 1997, Representation, London, Sage and
Open University Press, pp.274. return
(19) Teresa de Lauretis, ibid, pp.26. return
(20) Stuart Hall, ibid, pp.44. return
(21) Michel Foucault, ibid, pp.131. return
(22) Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger, Matrix and Metramorphosis,
in differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 4.3 (1992),
Providence, Brown University, pp.200. return
(23) John Berger, 1972, Ways of Seeing, BBC TV,
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. return