Long time no post: much writing and rewriting of the thesis, and production of practical works (and performances) have held me back from posting lately. But with my viva now approaching, it seemed like a good time to catch up with some reflective thinking - some of it still sketchy - on what I'm doing, how, why, and for whom.
Performance and Performativity
The research poster I created earlier this year addressed my
sense of theatricality as an artifice that knows it is an artifice, citing place as a space for
performance to occur. Therein, the ubiquitous nature of the red curtain which is
knowingly a backdrop which operates solely as a backdrop to focus on the
action, and hide the domestic banality beneath. The curtain as a signifier of
theatricality, of artifice: the knowledge that what follows is not fact, but a
narrative composition.
My sense of dress and the theatrical in terms of display,
action and dress. The sense that there are layers beneath which are more
'real' as in (Layer Upon Layer). Theatrical garb/performance as an
overt acknowledgment of the theatricality of being, the knowing that what is
presented is a fabrication of some sort. There is artifice at work, often
knowingly and explicitly, but as to how
deep is dependent upon the subjective
readings of the performer as a person, beneath the acknowledged layers
of artifice (hats, gloves, boas etc.) To a point I can separate work from
person, though any attack upon a performance could be seen as a veiled ad
hominem, but on the reverse, I can always flip the argument to refer it to
a persona rather than the person beneath.
Theatre of performance, theatre of objectivity. The 'sex
object' aspect. Who is my audience? Who are my audiences? Qualitative: as
distinct from Shirley, who disavows working FOR any kind of audience. My work
demands audiences plural, but they will vary for each area of my work and
pracvtice. My webcam paying audience will not be the same as my Hardwired or
Punk Opera audiences. As Sprinkle says, her audience grows along with
her - but also, they vary according to my works. My live performance is
dependent upon some level of give and take (e.g Bump n Grind requires
"the dreaded audience participation" - a lack of which has actually
informed how far to take the piece, as discovered on my opening night of the
Dundee Fringe, 2023).
My work is presented 'as is'. A nonbinary body subject to
subjective readings of the person and self (note the Fringe reviewer's use of
'she/her' pronouns on my show). I do not 'aim' to be accepted or 'read' as
anything, as in a drag show - I am simply me, embodying my own sense of me,
being, self. My work relies upon audience, only in the sense that each member
of an audience will ‘read’ me in their own subjective way.
Is there a sense of 'connivance' at work within female and
trans-generated porn whether amateur, or especially, professional - in the
sense of 'pleasing the crowd' and therefore tending to conform to standards of
heteronormative expectation - to what extent is the dominant culture
internalised?* (I recognised this tendency within myself long ago, and aimed to
subvert it (e.g. my comix which led to the ‘phiz/phys’ concept), and utilise it
in whatever way I could, rather than trying deny its over 40-year influence
upon me.
Fragmentation as a theme – interconnectivity between
related, and also disparate, elements and works (or components of works).
Fragments of the artist’s self and persona are presented via monologues,
personae and other imagery, sometimes with autobiographical references.
Fundamental element of all works is the non-binary body,
physiognomy and/or persona, via either drawn representations, performative
personae, or biographical/auto-ethnographical narratives.
‘Incongruity’ is an element but one which is often not
explicitly presented or referenced – leaving this to a subjective reading of
any persona, as an aesthetic, social etc. judgment on behalf of the viewer (A
Punk Opera presents a spectrum of gender from hypermasculine thug, to
squeaky-voiced girlish female lead). Those who view the performer simply ‘as
they are’ will be unlikely to consider the incongruity present, but works are
made with the expectation and knowing that many will, and that various readings
of characters in, say, A Punk Opera or Weimar will affect an
audience’s view of those characters’ sexuality as a result.
The DIY, the domestic, the unpolished, the raw and the
natural are all aesthetic elements which reflect a body of work made mostly
without ‘high’ sensibilities or veneers, hence frequent references to
anarchism, punk, and DIY, plus the natural readymade material of the performer
themselves as a medium. Immediacy, then, is an important element of the
performative, whether in live public interactions (gigs, open mics, festivals)
or online (webcam work).
Energy, attitude, emotion and personal lived experience are
foundational forces behind many of the works, specifically the preference for live iterations over any single
‘canonical’ recording. The obliteration of ‘canon’ as well as structure are two
of the main themes of A Punk Opera.
Work informed by adult/porn material (whether soft –
striptease) or hard (Howard, Sprinkle) references not sex but bodies,
revelation, and tease (itself used as a device to deter biological essentialism
and present gendered ambiguity), a theme founded in the necessity of
presenting a solo performer who does not interact sexually with others. Or else
– as in Do you think it’s OK, Lilith of the Valley and 2
Minutes of Sketchy Noises, discuss real-life interactions with others,
others’ views of the self, and in the latter two examples, the
artist/performer’s place within a specific online adult hierarchy. Hence the
creation of works in ‘problematic’ genres seeks to address the research
question of whether such material can ever produce positive,
body-affirming, validation or empowerment. Again this is subject to individual
audiences’ perceptions, and readings of the performer.
The responses of real people in real time is an element used
by the performer to further fuel performance – whether it be online, or in a
live situation.
Weimar embodies the performative and theatrical
elements of its source material, 1920s cabaret, Brecht, Berg’s Lulu and
Bob Fosse in general, with immersive characterisation also featured heavily in
‘Jack Robinson’, in which one persona is maintained throughout seven short
monologues (and one dialogue). My characters, like most fictionals, exist
within the world of the words they speak. Most are nameless - only in Hardwired,
the Punk Opera and Incredibly Queer Transition do characters have
biographies and names outside of the immediate text (in terms of a past which
life which has informed their current states).
The works are designed to either suggest a ‘new normativity’
(i.e., to normalise what is still referred to in ‘alternative’ or non-standard
terms) or to challenge preconceptions, prejudices, assumptions about what ‘is’
or is not’ acceptable within certain genres or modes of behaviour. This owes
its fundamental affirming, positive origins to Juliet Jacques’ appeal for an Écriture
trans-feminine.
A couple of the final AI-generated images in the Trans
Bodies 101 series, being of a disturbing nature, sit uncomfortably
alongside other explicit images which may be read as pornographic. This is
intentional, for where there is sex, there is violence, as Chapter 3 of the
thesis makes clear, and the series is also intended to be experienced
sequentially (providing, it is hoped, a deliberate cessation of any hint of
erotic frisson that may possibly have been built up over the preceding images).
Transwomen remain overtly sexualised in media, and are also subjected to
violence, dark realities which the artist’s work otherwise rarely touches upon
(the other example, Do you think it’s OK?, being a catalogue of sexual
harassment the artist has personally received in public over the years). The
reasons for not addressing these points more openly is strictly
socio-political, as the artist no longer considers themselves a frontline
activist.
Thesis chapters and case studies are referenced within
various works as follows:
Ch. 1 – A. Sprinkle. Main sources: L. Kipnis, D. Torr, S.
Marcus.
Relevant practice-based works: 42nd Street, Striptych,
Bump ‘n Grind, Shemale Porn 101
Ch. 2 – J. Howard. Main sources: Ogas & Gaddam, Bakhtin
via Stam, Marcus
Relevant practice-based works: Trans Bodies 101 AI-generated series, What Do Guys Want to
See…?, Questioning Cartoons series
Ch. 3 – ‘Shirley S. Willing’.
Main sources: Sade, Bataille, Ruberg, Marcus
Relevant practice-based works: Last Transmission
