Monday, April 26, 2010

"With the assertion of identity comes the risk of being ghettoized"
-p 246
Is there a way around this?

Is asserting identity the same thing as asserting difference? Can one assert collectivity and sameness without asserting difference or is this impossible as the nature of art making is based in asserting difference?

Does this mean that heterosexual white middle class males are incapable of asserting difference in this culture? This seems like a dangerously double edged sword-- it seems to allow white males to deal with more universal content than the liminal artist.

How can one identify with a group without their work being drawn through the filters associated with said group whenever their work is viewed? (Ex: Georgia O'Keefe's flower paintings)

Essentialists vs. Deconstructionists. How can identity be stable? What would that look like? It seems that identity is a mutable thing-- subject to cultural fluctuations and reliant on context.

"Difference implies difference from something-- it can't exist in itself. Thus, critics argued, these concepts actually reinforce the hierarchies they claim to undermine." p.246
Yes, BUT to ignore difference or claim sameness without asserting difference would be tacitly giving in to the status quo, assuming equal rights and treatment when in reality people are treated differently based on their perceived deviance from the norm. There is a need for identity based art as long as there is identity based prejudice.

"Otherness and sameness are more useful when they are viewed not in terms of dualities or conflicts, but but in terms of degrees and movements within the same concept, or better, in terms of difference both within and between entities." p.248
I am cheered by the above idea-- it seems much less limiting than the 90's version of multiculturalism. What would art created in light of the above statement look like?

Is identity partially based on choice, or is it solely based on circumstances into which we are born?

No comments:

Post a Comment