writtenfromleft

tirsdag den 26. juli 2011

" When in doubt. Be extreme! " - Genesis P. Orridge

Indsendt af armstrong kl. 13.36

Send med mail Blog om dette!Del via Twitter Del via Facebook Del på Pinterest

Ingen kommentarer:

Send en kommentar

Start

Abonner på: Kommentarer til indlægget (Atom)

This blog functions as an online bookshelf for my writings, some published, others not. I am mostly interested in contemporary dance, performance art and political activism. Though I do also love boring stuff like cakes and punk rock.

I am a professional dancer and not a professional writer- though that hasn't stopped me so far.!!! enjoy!

Faste læsere

Blog-arkiv

▼ 2011 (1)
- ▼ juli (1)
  - " When in doubt. Be extreme! " - Genesis P. Orridge

Om mig

armstrong

Vis hele min profil

GENETIC TERRORISM: Towards a new consciousness.

“...a mode of genetic terrorism that figures a convergence of sustained assaults upon perceived ideals about the body, its pleasures, pains and desires.”
( P. Orridge, 2010)

This essay is based around the question whether body modification can contribute to actualize notions of political theory and thereby seek out to diminish the border between theory and practise. Throughout the essay I will hope to establish notions of resistance using the mediums of body modification and performance within the context of art as life and life as art. Something I will do primarily by looking at Breyer P. Orridge and eys flesh collage, Breaking Sex (1999-2007) Furthermore I will be drawing upon the artistic history of Genesis P. Orridge and analyse the philosophies of Breaking Sex using theory by Donna Haraway, Slavoj Zizek and Foucault.
In order to respect the personal definitions and achievements of Breyer P. Orridge, I will be referring to ey as gender neutral, using guidelines from alternative queer writing.

Breaking Sex

“ Positive Androgyny
Power Androgyny
Potent Androgyny
Political Androgyny
Perfect Androgyny
Precious Androgyny
P- Androgyny”

-In Prayers for Sacred Hearts by Genesis P. Orridge
(p.3, D. Johnson, Kult ov Kaos)

One P-androgyne - once Jackie Breyer (Lady Jay) and Genesis P. Orridge. Breaking Sex ( 1999-2007) was a series of body modifications achieved by several surgical procedures spanning over nearly a decade. By exploring the culturally imposed narratives residing in the body, they set out to
“........visually mirror their bodies, by including breast implants, chin, cheek and eye augmentation, dental operations and facial tattooing.” ( p. 247, D. Johnson, 2010)
By literally cutting up their bodies, they believed to be able to let go of the lifelong attachments given by their appearance.

They viewed the body as a logo, a physical manifestation of the Self and with Breaking Sex, they discussed the importance of the malleability of identity. With the belief that many internal conflicts arise when the body pre-conditioned by society, isn't given the freedom to evolve. Evolution requires a next phase, which they proclaimed was achievable through calculated impulses found within body modification as; cosmetic surgeries, piercings and tattoos. Taking an active part in the evolutionary act, believing that it would have crucial means for the human survival not to do so.In a way where they not right, do we not rely on practitioners, such as Breyer P. Orridge and scientists to question and push the boundaries of our ethics and technologies.
Before I proceed to introduce and discuss the influences and philosophies that all add up to the work of Breaking Sex I will give a short summery of the background and contextual placement of Lady Jay Breyer and Genesis P. Orridge.

” COUM guarantee disappointment”
( p. 1.16, S. Ford, 1999)

Probably best known as the front figure in performance/ action group COUM Transmissions and industrial rock arrangement, Throbbing Gristle. Genesis P. Orridge was once Neil Andrew Megson, born 1950 in Manchester. Ey have always had an anarchic reasoning that justified that anything could be included in art. Ey made happenings that involved and challenged the body, audiences and the surrounding society and time. Mostly working within the concept of happenings, which is defined as an disorganized set of activities or games that enables the performer to interact freely with the audience or the environment. (The term was first introduced in 1965 by American artist Alan Kaprow.)

In eys early days as an artist ey explored the path of “...art as life, life as art.” (R. Metzger, 2002) and briefly joined the collective Transmedia Explorations, also known as “ London's love -anarchist dance company” ( p.1.12, S. Ford, 1999) The group, founded by Gerald Fitzgerald, worked as a commune of anarchist spirit consisting of various artists as; dancers, poets and musicians. The philosophy was to break habit and free the interaction between art and people, without the interference from law and authority. They attempted to do this by following strict regimes consisting of; irregular sleeping patterns and food intake, risk of beating and 'extreme' sexual encounters. Ey established and explored within the Transmedia Collective attitudes towards habit and construction that resonates in the work of Breaking Sex.

As a result of a quasi-religious vision in 1969, Genesis P. Orridge founded COUM Transmissions and it was also around this time Neil Megson took the ironic name, Genesis P. Orridge, an attempt to break free of past and allow a new identity (or identities) to flourish. In 1976 COUM held their notorious exhibition Prostitution at the ICA and was proclaimed to be committed “ Wreckers of Civilisation” ( S. Ford, 1999)

“COUM’s shamanistic improvisations involving enemas, blood, roses, wire, feathers, sexual intercourse, milk, urine, licking up vomit, crucifixion, maggots and self-mutilation were often not conceptualized until the very moment of the performances, if at all. Indeed, the *point* often escaped the performers themselves. For P-Orridge and Tutti it was about freeing themselves (and the spectators) of their own taboos by performing benign exorcisms of a sick society’s malignancies.”

(R. Metzger, 2002)

During the 70's COUM became more radicalised and issues of taboo and the morality of society, were important themes in their work. This fitted well into the tendencies of the counter cultural art collectives of the time as politics was in fashion and issues raised in Marxism, feminism and anti racial ideology were common topics in the arts and mainly manifested through performance/conceptual art. Though COUM didn't operate within a strict political agenda, COUM still functioned as a 'terror art organization' in opposition to the state.
” COUM's work can be seen as a part of a counter -cultural campaign to exercise ‘individual choice’ by questioning and satirising an increasingly discredited cultural establishment.” ( p. 1.21, S. Ford, 1999 )

COUM explored their boundaries, the cultural limitations of certain actions and tried to set themselves free by breaking their personal taboos, actions that would transform into strong reactions from their audiences and echo as provoking gestures against society.
Around the 80's Genesis founded Psychic TV and Thee Temple ov Phsycick Youth ( T.O.P.Y), a performance-music ‘cult’ based in London. Genesis had always been interested in paganism and magick and T.O.P.Y explored the channelling of sexual energy for the purpose of creative process. Sigil-magick, also known as sex-magick; is a form within chaos magick practise, that allows the unconscious mind to connect with the universe and in order to achieve what is desired. “ All things that are created with the mind have the ability to manifest outside of the mind in some form or shape. The mind is a microcosm of the universe. That which affects the mind, has the ability to affect the universe. “ ( p.10, D. Cunningham, 2003)
A philosophy and a magical approach which I think also explains important beginning influences and thoughts in relation to Breaking Sex. “Through a magical entity you have the ability to create a ‘being’, from the thoughts and emotions of your conscious mind, and by your direction this ‘being’ will act to manifest your desires.” ( p. 9, D. Cunningham, 2003)

Modern primitivism

“ To be transformed physically is to be transformed spiritually.” (p. 9, B. Perlingieri, 2003)

In 1989 Genesis was profiled in Modern Primitives, the bible for tattoo acolytes, as ey was a pioneer of tattoos, piercings, scars and cutting. Modern Primitivism was a term coined by Fakir Musafar in 1978 and a movement based on the rediscovery of ancient traditions of modifications of the body and Modern Primitivism became the Western approach to such desires.
Tribal societies are known to use body modification as rites of passage, for unification in times of chaos and disaster and for healing. Breyer. P. orridge has stated that body modification is a direct step towards an improvement of the body and marks transformation as acts of liberation.( B. Perlingieri, 2003) Breaking Sex can be read in terms of body adornment, as a rite of passage towards a new consciousness.
COUM wasn't about entertainment and Genesis “.... was coumcerned with direct symbolic interpretation of actions to realise a uniquely personal perception.” (p. 4.13, S. Ford, 1999) I believe this statement revolves around the main points of Modern Primitivism as it inspires thoughts of the ownership of the body. The personal perception, also meaning our personal desires and the actions towards the body, should only be determined by internal perception or moral and not submit to dictatorship of external value systems.

CUTting-UP bodies

Breaking Sex is a physical embodiment of the ideas of beatnik poets and artists William S. Burroughs and Brion Gysin's; cut-up technique. In order to free the written form from its linearity, Burroughs and Gysin, both close friends of Genesis, would cut up texts and thereafter randomly piece the words together in order to create new texts. In doing this they believed that it would reveal what was there all along. Texts would assemble in their truest form and would expose The Third Mind – a new consciousness. (D. Johnson, Kult ov Kaos)
“This was produced with a willingness to sacrifice their own separate, previously inviolate works and artistic 'ownership'. In many ways they saw 'the third mind' as an entity in and of itself-something 'other', closer to a purity of essence and the origin and source of a magical or divine creativity that could only result from the unconditional integration of two sources.” ( p.3, D. Johnson, Kult ov Kaos)

Breaking Sex and a Manifesto for Cyborgs.

“ In this mo-meant, our coumcern is SELF-professed, to re-construct. Our dream is to becoum INTEGRATED on every level ov consciousness and character.” ( p. 64, P. Orridge, 1994)
When trying to dissect the 'body' and meaning behind Breaking Sex I found similarities to the Cyborg Manifesto by Donna Haraway from 1990. Though Haraway's manifesto speaks primarily from a post-modern socialist-feminist point of view, her notions of the genderless post -human, does reflect central ideas within Breaking Sex.
Another clue towards a textual unity of the two works, comes across in the discussions of the possibility to build a new consciousness and unified sense of being. The joined meaning, that the Pandrogyne and the Cyborg both are build upon bio-technological strategies, in order to transform the political constructions and boundaries previously forced upon them. It is the abandonment of a fixed and permanently defined self and other.
Before I continue to extract the parallels within the works, I want to express a concern I had before adding Donna Haraway into the melting pot of this essay. When reading through the Cyborg Manifesto it seemed to me that main ideas of Pandrogeny had been inspired by the manifesto, but at the same time had sidelined the feminist complexities and emphasis intended by Haraway. My claim is that they as a whole have taken the Cyborg Manifesto too literal by ignoring important metaphorical and rhetorical strategies within the text. Though finally I argue that it is perfectly valid to read a text without a hierarchical appreciation for the authors intentions and that what we are dealing with is the integration and distinction of theory and practice.

Donna Haraway created the political myth of the Cyborg in order to explain her notions of feminist post-modernism. The Cyborg is fictional and intended as an ironic figure. She explains that through irony one can unite contradictions and in this way refuse a one-dimensional truth. I doubt there is a sense of irony within of the work of Breaking Sex, though one could argue a certain hint of irony traced within the ‘staging’ of it. A Cyborg is; “.... a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction.” ( p. 191, D. Haraway, 1990)
Social reality is the political construction of our social habits and what Haraway refers to as something that is essentially a world-changing fiction. The Cyborg figure grasps an idea of liberation, within the construction of a new consciousness and an adaptation of oppression, as an imaginative apprehension. By confusing the boundaries between reality and imagination Haraway presents the possibility of historical transformation. ( D. Haraway, 1990)
Something Foucault similarly expressed like this; “ ..the possibility exists to make fiction work in truth, to induce effects of truth with a discourse of fiction.” ( p. 213, M. Foucault, 1989)
Breaking Sex reflects similar notions of fiction and reality. Through the combination of the bodily and social realities of Breyer P. Orridge the Pandrogyne is born. The Third Being, transcending the effects of previous oppression and representing the divine state of another consciousness, immune to the restrictions of the flesh and its history. Resonating within their bodies and disrupting the dichotomies that once governed them. Disrupting and re-shaping the concepts of man and woman, nature and technology, mortality and immortality.

The elimination of binary composition

“We are but one”
(Breyer P. Orridge, Pandrogeny Manifesto)

Breaking Sex is an expression of a deep rooted concern for the binary systems embedded in society. A dichotomy they believed was the main cause for self-perpetuating insecurity and uncontrollable conflict and something which “....... threaten the continued existence of our species and the pragmatic beauty of infinite diversity of expression.” (D. Johnson, Kult ov Kaos)

Their argument was that we are predestined who we are to become even before we are born and that our entire being is essentially build on the categorization of our identity. A dualistic boxing that results in limited definitions available and ridged boxes free for occupation.
Breaking Sex most notably revolts against the dichotomous structure, by rejecting gender. “... some feel like a man trapped in a woman's body, others like a woman trapped in a man's body. The p-androgyne says; "I feel trapped in a body.” ( p. 1, A. Robinson, 2007) Breyer P. Orridge stated that the Pandrogyne was more the means of a third entity rather than a third gender. Breaking Sex relates to gender but ey viewed gender as a concept of construction. “ Every man and woman is a man and woman.” (Breyer P. Orridge, Pandrogeny Manifesto) Essentially meaning that the boundaries of definition and identity have transgressed and binary structures replaced with the infinite possibilities of potent fusions and co-existence: the loss of gender.

Haraway also wanted to distance the feminist allure with dualism. She stated that dualism within western tradition:
“… have been systematic to the logics and practices of domination of woman, people of colour, nature, workers, animals- in short, domination of all constituted as others, whose task is to mirror the self. “ (p. 219, D. Haraway, 1990)
She was conscious of exclusion through naming as an acute way of oppression and so the Cyborg is also an idea of regeneration of binary thinking and allows the possibility for reconstitution. As with Pandrogeny this idea included the utopian dream of a genderless world believing that this deconstruction would lead to a higher unity and chance for infinite freedom.
Haraway also argues that the notion of ‘females’ being naturally united is fictional and limiting.

“There is nothing about being ‘female’ that naturally binds woman. There is not even such a state as ‘being’ female itself a highly complex category constructed in contested sexual scientific discourses and other social practises . Gender, race, or class consciousness is an achievement forced on us by the terrible historical experience of the contradictory social realities of patriarchy, colonialism, racism and capitalism.”
( p. 197, D. Haraway, 1990)

Haraway believed that rather than assuming the unity between women, real unification was an conscious achievement of feminism beyond the boundaries of definitions of gender, class and colour. Haraway positively stated in her manifest that time was ready for political unity and allied with Judith Butler (which included political notions of sexuality), the 90’s opened up discussions of construction of gender and utilized the phenomenon known as Queer theory.

As explained there are many similarities of the Pandrogeny’s world and the Cyborg’ s. Though where the Cyborg Manifest is an intellectual proposition, Breaking Sex is a physical manifestation. Ideas of Pandrogeny do not directly address a movement or any other political orientation. I believe what is the beauty about Breaking Sex and where academia fails is when dealing with the notion of love. In this aspect it is the unification of two individuals that willingly submit their whole being to another person, as when someone loves so much you want to consume them and be consumed by them. The Pandrogynous love tries to break free of hetero normative expectations and build an infinite love between them.
“ Another very important aspect of our work is the expression of a deeply romantic love. Breyer P. Orridge love each other so much that they wish to surrender their bodies to that same place of serenity where their hearts already resign.” (Breyer P. Orridge, Pandrogeny Manifesto)

Another dichotomy that I briefly want to approach is the binary between mind and body. In the Pandrogeny manifesto Breyer P. Orridge states that the body is merely a logo and functions as a host-environment for the mind. I found this statement confusing as I believe it contradicts their actions. Their statement argues for a body that has no power in the transformation of the mind, despite it is exactly what they did.

They used the transformation of their bodies to transform their mind in order to create a third entity based on freedom and unity. It is to say that the mind lives within the body and vice versa, Elizabeth Grosz said that: “… all the significant facets and complexities of subjects, can be as adequately explained using the subjects corporeality as a framework as it would be using consciousness or the unconscious. All the effects of depth and interiority can be explained in terms of the inscriptions and transformations of the subject’s corporeal surface.” ( p. viii, E. Grosz, 1994)

Somehow Breaking sex also challenges the biological binary between life and death. When Jackie Breyer’s body died in 2007 eys appearance and symbiosis lives on through the being of Genesis, which still refers to ey self in plural. In a sense it replicates notions of Christianity, which is based on the myth of the divine figure of God representing the infinite path to salvation and love. Once it was only the humble children of God that was promised a place within the infinite afterlife of love, but thanks to Breaking Sex, possibilities and imagination can evolve beyond the realm of religious dogma.

The Other

The Pandrogyne is the creation and integration with the Other, a liberating embrace with the Other as an essential path towards unity and emancipation. How does this contradict strategies within political discourse in today's society? Looking at the discourse of politics, the Other is the subject of distrust, a terrorist and the main cause for; racism, homophobia, mass-hysteria and fear. The Other is the virus which infects the 'We/ Us' ; the false unities of national, religious and political borders. These borders protect a body of invisible commitment and withholds what Sara Ahmed in the book; The Cultural politics of emotion, poses as the absolute opposition to unity. Terms within political discourse such as being 'soft' stands as a negative character and is related to the attributes of femininity. ( S. Ahmed, 2004)
“ The metaphor of the soft touch suggests that the nation's borders and defences are like skin, they are soft, weak, porous and easily shaped or even bruised by the proximity of others. It suggests that the nation is made vulnerable to abuse by its very openness to others. “ ( p. 2 , S. Ahmed, 2004)

Slavoj Zizek talks in the book Violence about the divisions of culture and the main reasons being, intolerance. “ The ultimate source of barbarism is culture itself, one's direct identification with a particular culture which renders one intolerant towards other cultures.” ( p. 120, S. Zizek, 2008 ) He describes a static cultural identity that goes against the terms of a malleable identity that as earlier also is described in the manifesto's and work of Donna Haraway and Breaking Sex.

Zizek states that it is not about removing one self from culture but creating a new fluid culture with no borders, a culture with beliefs and practises instead of norms and rules: To be Kulturlos!
Which is the subject of the Cartesian thought, that; “ ..the subject is conceived as capable of stepping outside her particular cultural/ social roots and asserting her full autonomy and universality. “ (p. 120, S. Zizek, 2008)

By using Sara Ahmed's metaphor of the cultural borders, as skin and when viewing the body as an anatomical micro-society, one can start arguing the broader aspects of opening up the body. Through the practise of body modification allowing the Other- in forms of needles and scalpels- to re-build the surface and transform internal cultural conflict. Something which is essential when we talk of the ideological effects of body modification in terms of political activism. Something I am going to be discussing further in the end of this essay. Though first what are the interior and exterior struggles Genesis and Jackie wanted to emancipate themselves from?

Violence

Foucault says; man is an invention (L. Fillingham, 1993) and Breyer P. Orridge says; “ Our identity is fictional, written by our parents, relatives, education and society as a whole.” ( Pandrogeny Manifesto)

Foucault talks about bio-power as a system of inclined and replicated codex's that fluctuates in the invisible sphere of our collective consciousness. He stated that power is essentially what systematizes and distributes bodies, through separation and categorization, in a demographic sense and with the lowest economic risk. (M. Foucault, 1975)

It's important to remember that power doesn't only operate through law and by one set of individuals. Though power is mostly represented through the notion of Government, it also functions through techniques that operate in micro societies such as; the family, class structure, man-woman and knowledge- no knowledge paradigms. All modes of power have their own configuration and relative autonomy and power cross-references and co-exists, to the advantage of one another. (M. Foucault, 1989)

Slavoj Zizek has his academic roots within Marxism and Lacanian thought. He uses a terminology of violence to explain some of the same invisible forces of power Foucault deals with. Zizek divides violence into two main parts: the subjective and the objective.
Subjective violence is a term which refers to visible violence, i.e as physical pain (violence performed by a clearly identifiable agent).
Whereas objective violence; is a term which is then sub-divided into two notions: symbolic and systematic violence. Symbolic violence, meaning the invisible violence embodied in language and other habitual forms and finally systematic violence referring to the “ catastrophic consequences of the smooth functioning of our economic and political systems” ( Zizek, 2008)

Zizek describes objective violence as something that cannot be addressed directly and therefore becomes a subject proper to art. Objective violence also contains the silent threat of violence, which is something the anarchist and lecturer Derrick Jensen explains exists i.e. within the economic principles of; paying rent and shopping food, as if you don't conform to this structure one faces prison or eviction. Derrick Jensen also refers to objective violence in relation to the exploitation of resources from 'underdeveloped' countries, where the violence is simply exported. (D. Jensen, from: Why you pay rent?)

Subjective violence is easier to address, but Zizek explains, it is crucial to look at the contours of the background for violent outbursts. (S. Zizek, 2008) In relation to Breaking Sex or to body modification in general, this statement could transcript to the very notion of how it is easier to focus on the pain involved in a certain modification, rather than discuss the very cause or desire that lies behind such action.

Divine violence

“ The body is moulded by great many distinct regimes: it is broken down by the rhythm of work, rest ,and holidays: it is poisoned by food or values, through eating habits of moral laws: it constructs resistance.” ( p.104, L. Fillingham, 1993)

Zizek and Foucault both explain how power will always exist and we must instead pursue to operate from the inventive, mobile and productive forms of power. Divine violence is to acknowledge that not all power is oppressive and not all violence is counterproductive. Divine violence is when violence demands and enacts immediate justice and vengeance. It is the subject of love and an attempt towards Utopia, where ever that may flourish within political doctrines or personal realizations.
Zizek paraphrases Kant and Robespierre which say that

“love without cruelty is powerless and cruelty without love is blind, as a short-lived passion which loses its persistent edge.” ( p.173, S. Zizek, 2008)

Within divine violence is a place to unite and Zizek believes that true unification lies within the emancipatory struggle, a struggle uniting the oppressed and which includes risk. This is the notion of resistance. (S. Zizek, 2008)

So when relating the thesis of divine violence to Breaking Sex and Pandrogeny I would argue that they are built around the same thing. Positive productive violence is the cutting of flesh within Breaking Sex. The love between Jackie and Genesis might be based on a personal longing for unity, rather than a political universal one, but still plays an important part in the grand scheme of resistance. “ Love poses as a threat to cultures of all kinds, for when human beings are given wisdom and valour by true love they will not be held back by traditions or customs which are irrelevant to the feelings that guide them” ( p.152, CrimethInc, 2001)
Body modification can be a way of expressing an urge to resist the status quo, a victory in the longing for free choice, ownership over our bodies, love and desires. Body modification is:
“ ..to explore what the body is capable of. In a way, it is an implementation of power. It is not an established power nor is it a coercive power but a power on the self or rather to become him/herself, following an itinerary combining the aleatory and his personal choices, the conscious and the fortuitous. “ ( p.21 , L. Zspira, 2005)

Resistance!!!

“ We are never trapped by power, we can always modify its grip in determinate conditions and according to a precise strategy.” ( p. 225, Foucault live)
In this essay I have given a proposition to one reading of Breaking Sex that allows the discussion of political and societal implications on the body. I have tried to apply notions of political theory to the very means of physical embodiment and actualization and hoped to increase the distinctions between theory and practise. I have dealt with modifications that not only scars and marks the body, but reshapes and recreates it, using body modification as a tool for transformation of the self and against oppressive construct.

Though I am not claiming that body modification ALWAYS functions as a medium for resistance and change. As body modification is a medium in which intention and vision always will be the key players of any outcome. It is the emancipatory and curious desire that unites us. It is the means of how we use our technologies individually as well as a for an unified necessity, finding and pushing the boundaries between choice and alienation, possibility and 'obligation'.

Capitalism will always try to facilitate the desire for resistance and “cash in on the very frustration that their system creates” ( p. 160, CrimethInc, 2001) and use this to control and pacify attacks on their system. That is why Lady Gaga doesn't pose a threat to the borders of normative binaries and is why body modification is slowly integrated within the commodity of consumer fashion.
Though this makes resistance and art a powerful contestant against the culture of capitalism and oppresssion. One could even argue that without resistance and experimentation beyond the safe, we would have no society at all.

So is body modification a strategy that is able to achieve the absolute integration or elimination of the binary? Will the use of body modification enable us to completely disregard the effects of invisible indoctrination ? No, but rather it is a tool that functions as an important opposition to the power structures implemented in society and is the means of a process with no visible goal. “ It is the commitment to the idea and not the ideal, which is our path.” ( Pandrogeny Manifesto)
The goal lies within the malleable existence of our explorations and desires, which is a strength, that poses as a barricade against the attacks on our being. Breaking sex is a threat towards the way we conjure limitations and it presents the possibility of positive transformation. Lets welcome a new consciousness towards the infinite.

” We will live it and commit our lives and our bodies and our souls to it. That’s the only way it will work. That’s the only way we will find out (whispers) what it is. The medium is manifested by total immersion.”( R. Metzger, 2002)

Bibliography
Ahmed, S.( 2004) The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Breyer. P. Orridge, G. and J. (Kok Issue 1) Breaking Sex: Excerpts from a dialogue with Dominic Johnson. In Natas, S. (Ed.). Kult ov Kaos Magazine.

Breyer P. Orridge: Pandrogeny Manifesto. [Video file]. ( 2010, March 14). Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6qnvNw6NP8

CrimetInc Collective. ( 2001) Days of War. Nights of Love: Crimethink for beginners. Salem, USA: Active Resistance-Passionate Existence- CrimethInc Publications.

Cunningham, D.( 2003) Creating Magickal Entities. USA: Egregore Publishing.

Fillingham, L. ( 1993) Foucault for Beginners. London: Writers and Readers Publishing Inc.

Ford, S.(1999) Wreckers of Civilisation: The story of COUM Transmissions and Throbbing Gristle. London: Black Dog Publishing.

Foucault, M.( 1975) Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison. London: Penguin Books.

Foucault, M. and Lotringer, S.( Ed.),( 1989) Foucault Live: Interviews , 1961-1984. New York, NY: Semiotext(E)

Grosz, E. (1994)Volatile bodies - towards a corporeal feminism. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Haraway, D. (1990) A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology and Socialist Feminism in the 1980's. In Nicholson, L. (Ed.), Feminism/ Postmodernism ( pp. 190-233). London: Routledge.

Hirshhorn, M. (1996) Orlan: Artist in the post-human age of mechanical reincarnation: Body as ready( to be re-) made. In Pollock, G. ( Ed.), Generations and geographies in the visual arts: Feminist readings. (pp. 110- 1349. London: Routledge.

Jensen, D.: Why do you pay rent?[ Video file]. ( 2009, August 17). Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w520Y4Rd6oQ

In 2009 I spent a week in Riga in Latvia with the comtemporary dance company OZ. -Artistic Director, Olga Zitluhina.

This article was published in the Danish theatre magazine, Teater1 in 2010. The article gives a brief introduction to the Riga contemporary dance scene. Riga is a wonderful exciting city to explore.

(sorry it's only in Danish. If you want information contact me. )

Interview with Dr. Dominic Johnson by Sarah Armstrong 20th July 2010

How would you describe your art?

I think the key things that I am interested in now are the relations between the wound and use of spectacle, a sort of cheap theatrics of light, glitter and sound. I use very little movement so that the idea directs -the way in which the body moves in the piece. Usually these elements comes together in what I hope are performances that are quite simple but have a powerful effect or charge that creates an emotional response in the viewer.

I went to see Transmission, could you describe some of the thoughts behind this work and the process you went through when making it?

I think all my pieces come from a commitment to the image. There is definitely not a narrative behind it in terms of the structure of the piece. I work with images and see how they go together in a really practical sense. Transmission begins with the swinging of chains that are inserted into the skin of my forehead using hypodermic needles, and then continues with the removal of the chains. Blood comes out of the holes and glitter sticks to the blood. And it’s interesting for me because the choice of technique sets the score for the performance because you can’t actually change those things around. For me I find it quite liberating how you have an image and then see what happens then when you break that image apart and adorn it in different ways. Having said that with that piece there was a driving narrative in a sense that I was really interested in a dancer called Fred Herko who was a marginal figure in the early 1960s. He leapt out of a 5th storey window in 1964 and danced to his death. Originally I was trying to find references and information about him but there is really little written about him. He is one of those figures that appear in footnotes and in tiny references because he
doesn’t really fit in the standard dominant narratives of the period. There is this one great written image, a description of him doing a Susie Q with a tassel-veiled headdress and so I stuck with that and the work came from thinking about this headdress and looking for an interesting way to use a tasseled veil. I wanted to give it some of the mournful quality, that accompanies the idea of a person dancing himself to death. But that is completely hidden in the work and I don’t expect anyone to recognize this. Sometimes if there is a program I write a little reference to that in the program notes, so if people are interested they can have that insight but it is never revealed in club contexts, for example. I am fine with the idea of it being veiled or hidden.

There are elements of pain and strong imagery exposed within your works for some that could seem quite horrifying, what are some of the reactions your receive from your audiences?

I think it’s difficult to gage how audiences respond except for the fairly obvious reactions like you can sometimes see people leaving and every now and then there will be a little commotion because someone faints or someone staggers around a bit. Essentially what I do is a series of images so I am quite interested in how an image creates those kinds of physiological responses. It is not why I make work but I am interested in it as an effect. It’s bizarre that you make an image and someone faints, feels sick or cries. I think that is really odd. It is an unusual idea. I wouldn’t like to try and make a piece which sets out to create those effects but I think it is unusual and striking that it does do so.

This weekend in Edinburgh where I performed Transmission, a woman came into the dressing room when I was cleaning up and she said: “I really liked some of it but I am afraid I didn’t understand it.” and I said: “I don’t think I understand what you mean by not understanding it, what is there not to understand? “ And she replied: “I didn’t get the meaning, the story.” And it is really interesting because I have heard that quite a few times. So I said: “There is nothing really to get. What did you feel?” “I found it really moving and some bits I found unpleasant and I didn’t know what I was feeling.” “Well that’s enough. That is for you what the work means, it creates this unpleasant situation which is maybe about the relation between beauty and horror or the wound and glamour.” And her answer was: “ I thought maybe there was a hidden meaning.” I think that is just a misunderstanding of the way that meaning works. If a work has a hidden meaning it is going to stay hidden because images don’t really disclose their meaning very easily or effectively. I don’t think images contain meaning in the way that some audiences hope they do. I find that liberating and powerful though I think some would find that really frustrating.

What is the power of the wound?

I think the wound is really powerful, because it taps into deep -seated assumptions we have about the limits to ownership. There are ideologically sustained assumptions about the extent to which you have ownership of your body. Why do people look at you funny in certain situations for having tattoos – or perhaps cosmetic surgery? I think there is a question on certain people’s lips that says: Why would you want to do that to yourself? So for me that kind of hidden question is really interesting because the reason you would want to do it to yourself is partly because you can and I think that is one of the hunches that drives body modification. Why would you want to stretch the skin, modify the skin or see if the body can hold certain materials, like ink, metal or silicon? I want to do it because it is interesting. What is amazing is that the body can deal with lots. It’s sensitive but it is not that vulnerable. Also I think the wound is really powerful, especially in the theatre compared to other spaces, as the theatre is historically the place of fakery, acting and a certain kind of highly mediated representation. And so I think what happens when you bring the wound, – the cutting of skin – into those spaces is that it unsettles the logic of the theatre.

When I watched the piece you did with Ron Athey “Incorruptible Flesh (Perpetual Wound)” something that struck me as really strong was the intimacy you share during the performance. How do you work with intimacy in your pieces?

At the time intimacy was one of the themes I was really interested in, I did the piece with Ron and then I did some earlier collaborative work with Kris Canavanjust. And one of the things we were exploring was the idea of troubled intimacy. I was really interested in creating scenes of intimacy that were somehow challenging, rather than conditioned by the assumption that intimacy is always and only a pleasant experience. The wound becomes very crucial there because I think sharing the wound between two bodies – and especially between two gay bodies – creates very specific symbolic tensions. There is a piece called Gold Digger made with Kris Canavan which I think is probably one of the early pieces that worked best. We are both buried to the waist in a beautiful wasteland area and we are holding hands but separated as we are locked in the ground. I am not sure if I am so interested in the theme of trouble intimacy anymore, partly because I only make solo- work now and it is harder to create that sense of intimacy but at that time that was definitely the real driving force.

What are the broader political aspects of live art in London? And what are some of the issues concerned with public wounding? I have previously heard you mention Operation Spanner.

Firstly live art embraces a really wide range of practices, from works that involve wounding, to works that involve sexual practices, all the way through to other kinds of performances like activism and multimedia performance, or spoken word performance that looks almost like stand-up comedy. The small section of work that I am interested in at the moment or the work that I think relates to what I do are works that has some relation to the wound and sexuality. I think those works are influenced by quite resent and very important legal and ethical questions about what one is entitled to do with one’s own body.

So Operation Spanner was a legal case in 1990 where 15 people were convicted for bodily harm in terms of using SM in private which was based on consensual sexual practice. After that there were some problems in the making of performances because there were some questions about what you were legally entitled to do in public, as well as in private. I don’t think I have caused any legal or institutional problems but I think the legacy of Operation Spanner culturally hovers over the extent to which you are allowed to mess around with your own body or with the body of another person. As soon as you do something unusual that brings together sexual pleasure, pain or body modification you stray into difficult territories and as soon as you execute these practices in public then technically you open yourself up to greater surveillance.

spaces may be worried about being prosecuted or losing their license or funding, which is historically what has happened. It has never happened to me specifically but I think it is still a conceptual question that hovers over the work. Again it returns to this question of body modification and the limits to agency. On a really simple level, why is it acceptable for people to pierce their children’s ears but not acceptable to brand someone in a sexualized setting? I find the distinction really slight.

It seems like double standard hypocrisy...

Yes basically and it is because one action is in the service of very conventional assumptions about beauty and the other isn’t. So it becomes a question about beauty and about some weird assumption that inserting needles into the skin in your ears is natural or normal but having a larger piercing somewhere else becomes problematic. Similarly, a tattoo in a certain place is more or less acceptable but getting a tattoo on your face is seen as somehow deviant.

Are your performances Queer and what is queer?

I don’t call what I do queer performance but that’s only because I am not exactly sure what the terms means. I performed in Canada last month at a Queer Performance festival and it was really interesting because about 10 artists were asked to talk for 5 minutes each about how their work responds to queer politics, queer discourses etc. And what was really interesting was that none of the artists– who all seem well suited to a queer arts context --, were able to come to a consensus on what queer signifies. I know what I mean when I say ‘queer’ in everyday life, so if I speak about myself as queer or if I speak about a friend is as queer then I understand what it means and people understand when you use it that way. In everyday language the word goes beyond simply being lesbian, gay or transgender, and asserts that there is a resistant or oppositional quality to sexuality. But in performance I
think it’s really complicated because what happens is as soon as it enters scholarship or critical language, queer actually signifies something else. I like the idea of using queer in the way we understand it in everyday language but I am a bit nervous about the way it is used academically, because I think it may tend to depoliticizes the everyday usage. Because it just means anything can become queer, like an idea is queer or a performance is queer. This can tend to abstract the real experiences of people, which is something I find problematic. I can’t think of anyone whose work should fit into the category of ‘queer performance’, who actually identifies in that way. So Ron Athey doesn’t call himself a ‘queer performance’ maker and neither does Franko B.

If I was pushed to define what queer performance means I think it is about staging the radical malleability of the body and that the staging of should be a painful or difficult process. It doesn’t need to be painful in the way of breaking the skin but in the sense of there is a cost or risk. That’s why I don’t think Lady Gaga is well-suited to a discussion of queer performance, even though she is actually being discussed in academic circles in this way, which strikes me as a rather dubious assertion. She may perform malleability, suggesting that identity or gender is fluid, but there is no difficulty in the staging of it. It’s completely manufactured and completely fits within the culture industry. If queer performance is a useful category, it needs to resist easy modes of consumption.

If you could pick the word that you feel somehow most relates to your work.

Marginalized or commodity?

I think it is quite interesting that often you have to be one or the other. As soon as you break marginality, there will be bystanders who think that you become a commodity. So what I would question is whether one can refuse marginality or move beyond it while also resisting the allure of the commodity, which I think you can. However historically it has
often been the case as one moves away from the margin, one is tainted by the commodity. Marx writes about commodity fetishism and says that the commodity is a magical object which obscures a certain relation. And actually that becomes quite interesting– the idea of an object masking a whole set of greater, more problematic relationships. So maybe in that sense I am more interested in the fetish, not in the term of sexual fetishes as much as the question of how to avoid or to play with the allure.

Self harm or self actualization?

Self actualization because it speaks of agency, choice and the will to change the body. I think when people say performance art is a version of self harm it misunderstands both performance and self harm. Self harm is a medical term used to talk about very specific acts in which a body is marked. When I go to lectures I am sometimes asked this question and I always say: well would you feel comfortable with calling an actor a pathological liar? Comparing performance to self-harm is a bit like saying: I can’t go to the theatre because I really hate lying, or I don’t want to condone fraud. In a really abstract way it is a fair statement, but it seems ridiculous because we have a pretty clear understanding of the aesthetic drive behind a certain kind of fakery.The difference between self harm and performance is similar to the difference between lying and acting.

Success or failure?

Failure is much more interesting partly because I am not really sure what success in performance would look like. I don’t really talk about success but you can talk about effect, as in effective images, structures or actions. But I do love the thrill of failure. I often don’t find dance or circus so interesting, for example, because in these forms the difficulties are often masked. When the difficulties are revealed and you get a sense of tension where things could go wrong. Some would call that failure but I think that is the moment where it becomes interesting.

Blood or glitter?

I can only repond by saying blood AND glitter.

This article was published in the Danish theatre magazine, Teater1 in 2010

Fantastisk A/S tema. Leveret af Blogger.