rthko:

I recently saw a post with Fran Lebowitz saying, “a book isn’t supposed to be a mirror. It’s supposed to be a door,” and it made me think about the state of “representation” discourse online. I thought back to an anon I once received from someone who claims to get “secondhand embarrassment” from “drag queens, leather daddies, and kinksters with pup hoods acting like they represent all gays.” Many thought my response was too harsh, that I ought to show more sympathy to people who do not “relate” to nor feel “represented” by these modes of queer being. Blame it on online fandom, blame it on heteronormativity, but we are too concerned with “relatability.” It is the sort of “relatability” advertising executives concern themselves with, or “relatability” of people who treat their online presence as a “brand.” It is a notion I find alien to queer art and culture.

I have never done drag, nor do I consider myself a part of the leather community beyond befriending others who do and owning some gear. I do not “relate” to these expressions in any vulgar, literal sense, but they are still deeply resonant. And how many of these individuals truly “relate” to the images they peform? Drag artists and leathefolk are purveyors of fantasy. In their daily lives, they might not be bikers, rockstars, pop divas, or mythical beasts, but they reinvent themselves through metaphors and performances. These theatrical performances are no less absurd than the quotidian performances expected by cis straight society. Larry Mitchell writes, “The faggots act out their fantasies without believing them to be real. The men act out their fantasies always proclaiming that they are real.“

This could explain why literal attempts at relatability are often less resonant than campy extravogant fantasies. I once wrote a rant about how Taylor Swift is not a gay icon, and an anon smugly told me, "Taylor makes music for everyone and not just gays.” Yes, I suppose she does make music for “everyone,” in the same way that the Midwestern weather reporter voice is the universal accent of the English speaking world. But diva worship was never about “relating;” rather, it’s about survival through the evocation of patron saints of strength and glamor. Most celebrity or mass media attempts at “relatability” are at best clueless or at worst insulting. I would much rather participate in a campy fantasy, which is in its own right more “real.” Susan Sontag describes camp as the “farthest extension, in sensibility, of the metaphor of life as theater.”

I am not telling anyone to stop pushing for the recognition of diverse stories. This is crucial! But the recognition of queer stories should also come with an understanding of queer modes of resonance. When has John Waters ever produced something "relatable?” Who cares? His work resonates, in fact, more than a lot of “safe” gay media that should be all accounts be more “relatable.” The “average” listener would not necessarily relate to SOPHIE. They may find her work otherwordly or downright unsettling. But she did not produce music for the “average” listener, at least not before the rest of the musical landscape dragged to catch up with her. Adam Zmith writes: “Inside SOPHIE’s words, performances and final act is the queer utopia of always grasping, always dreaming of a freer life.” We are living the wildest dreams of our former, closeted selves, but we are still always grasping, never quite satiated. Queer art is not just autobiographical but aspirational. Let art be a door.

yaque-0000:

Circuit metabolism 4

zegalba:

Jean Vincent Simonet: “In Bloom” (2018)

“Printing my images onto plastic paper so the ink never quite dries, I then uses water and chemicals to transform the surface of the prints, abstracting and blurring them as if the scenes are melting away.”

mri-old:

CONSTRUCTOR by sec

sun-death:

Even the most repressive and the most deadly forms of social reproduction are produced by desire within the organization that is the consequence of such production under various conditions that we must analyze. That is why the fundamental problem of political philosophy is still precisely the one that Spinoza saw so clearly, and that Wilhelm Reich rediscovered: “Why do men fight for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation?” How can people possibly reach the point of shouting: “More taxes! Less bread!”? As Reich remarks, the astonishing thing is not that some people steal or that others occasionally go out on strike, but rather that all those who are starving do not steal as a regular practice, and all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike.

Gilles Deleuze & Feliz Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane)

proustiansleep:

“Slime molds have things to teach us. That a being can change but at the same time remain itselves—to use Octavia Butler’s phrase. That there is life and beauty in rot, in decay, in decomposition, in the ashes. That a hallmark of life is evanescence and ephemerality. That our limited, Romantic understanding of the world—“ew, slime”—is outdated. That nonhierarchical, nonbinary being is part of the reality of the world.”

— Lucy Jones, Creatures That Don’t Conform

prohaloplayer:

its giving off burroughs vibes