Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
konspiracija, grybauskaite, racingeris, grybai
Citation preview
2
4 - ieva gvazdaitytė 5 - viktė dambrauskaitė 6 - agnė daujotaitė 7 - neringa zakšauskaitė 8 - austėja banytė11 - tomas misevičius14 - reda paškauskaitė15 - laimonas zakas16 - aistė dabkevičiūtė19 - tadas bujanauskas20 - goda raibytė21 - domas raibys ėę90ė0ę0č9-ę0įč9šūė-ėčąė[perowkt
redacción - [email protected] [email protected]
8 117
1514
8 46
20 19 16 21
3
ieva gvazdaitytė whitecardboard.blogspot.com pastasievaiČgmail.com4
neringa zakšauskaitė
[email protected] TAI NIEKO NEŽINOM APIE JĄ
AJ TIK :ka su nosine hehe.jpg456K View Download
7
Ambivalence of drag in the �lm “To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar”Judith Butler in “Gender Trouble” talks about gender performativity using an example of drag. According to Butler, being or doing drag can disclose the unoriginal nature of gender (Butler 2010: 187). Using such tools as exaggeration and parody drag can strip gender from its originality and show how heteronormative discourse creates naturalized �ctions. Therefore drag can be subversive to the extent that it denaturalizes gender. Few years after publishing “Gender Trouble” Judith Butler explained in the interview for “Radical Philosophy” magazine, that readers oversimpli�ed the notion of drag and its ability to subvert. In the book “Bodies that matter” which followed after 3 years Butler brought in the concept of ambivalent drag. A drag that is not one dimensional and subversive just because it is drag, but drag whose reiteration can also reinstitute heterosexual gender norms. Using Butler’s theoretical framework I would like to analyze a movie “To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar” directed by a female director Beeban Kidron and show the ambivalence of drag and how it can serve as another agency for propagating heteronormativity. Actors that were chosen to play tree main drag queens are very masculine/muscular men. Looking at the history of their movies we can see a portrayal of a few di�erent kinds of masculinities: Patrick Swayze who plays Ms Vida, for example, is a masculine gentleman, well known for his romantic movies such as ‘Dirty dancing’. Wesley Snipes, Ms Noxeema, is an action hero that is usually associated with ‘Blade’ or ‘Demolition man’. The most versatile of them is John Leguizamo, Ms Chi-Chi in the movie, whose roles do not bring to mind one particular type of masculinity (only muscularity). One of the reasons they were chosen might be exactly the wish for contrast between masculine/muscular bodies and ‘feminine’ appearance. Powerful men dressed in women’s clothes, wearing perfect make up and wigs could lead to more critical view of gender as a natural phenomenon. This can suggest that gender is like a gown that could be worn by choice. In the beginning of ‘To Wong Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar’ three main drag queens are going to participate in the drag queen beauty pageant in New York. Drag queen appearance is usually exaggerated and theatrical, beginning with clothes and followed by body movements and facial expres-sions, which is very well portrayed in the pageant. Though apparently queens are not judged by the level or exaggeration and parody they bring to the audience but by the ability to pass as a ‘real’ woman. According to Judith Butler ‘‘realness’ is not exactly a category in which one competes; it is a standard that is used to judge any given performance within the established categories’ (Butler 1993: 129). The paradoxical importance of ‘realness’ in a drag pageant is most obvious during the competition and the announcement of winners. Most of the queens are wearing huge wigs that go from colour pink to sky blue, their make up as their clothes and their performance are exaggerated. They are dancing/competing to the song ‘she’s a lady’ by Tom Jones. Ms Vida and Noxeema look, move and behave most subtle and with no parody but rather sincerity and they are the ones to win the pageant. What strikes me most is the realization that passing as a woman is important in the drag queen pageant. Because a description of drag queen indicates the campy, caricature outlook on gender not the conforming and mundane ‘naturalness’. Here we are confronted with Butler’s concept of the ambivalent drag or if I could call it in the frame of subversive acts – unproductive drag. A wish to pass, to be seen as a ‘real’ woman comes into collision with the possibility of subversive power that ‘wearing gender’ could have. Instead of demolishing the presumed originality of gender forced upon us by heteronor-mative hegemony they are trying to become that gender as best as they can. Judith Butler explains how ‘heterosexuality can augment its hegemony through its denaturalization, as when we see denaturalizing parodies that reidelize heterosexual norms without calling them into question’ (Butler 1993: 231)Butler opposes the idea that gender can be worn, that it’s a jolly garment of choice. Rather it is a complex process that is compulsory and ongoing and cannot be simpli�ed to a belief that ‘clothes make a woman’ (Butler 1993: 231). This concept is well supported by a dialog (that works as a metaphor) in the movie where on their way to Los Angeles Noxeema and Ms Chi-Chi get into a �ght when Chi-Chi calls herself a drag queen. Noxeema tells her that she is ‘simply put, a boy in a dress’. Later on she adds that ‘this is not a masquerade, this is a real life; there are steps to becoming a queen’. Such frustration from Noxeema’s side could work as an argument against simplistic understanding of gender as a garment of choice. One has to constantly work on her/his gender (or queen-ness) performativity in order for it to become ‘real’. According to Butler ‘femininity is thus not the product of choice, but the forcible citation of a norm, one whose complex historicity is indissociable from relations of discipline, regulation, punishment’ (Butler 1993: 232). Women have to perform their femininity all the time to �t in heterosexual matrix. This proposition is very well illustrated in the movie where the only time we see Vida and Noxeema as men is the very beginning of the �lm. They are dressing up and putting on make up/wigs. Only few other times in the movie they leave their female character by accident or choice.Even though Vida, Noxeema and Chi-Chi are quite con�dent with the realness of their performance there is a constant fear of being exposed. There are tensions in the �lm that bring the possibility of homophobia. Chi-Chi is usually the reckless one – she does things that strengthen the tension of possible exposure and the viewer is constantly haunted by the possibility of homosexual panic which could result in violence. People whose judgment about ‘realness’ could be fatal to particular drag queens are men. And here we can see a very interesting point made by the director: all men, when they �rst meet the ‘girls’ believe them to be ‘real’ women. First the hotel clerk who takes them as sports women who have arrived for the female basketball confer-ence, then the policeman who stops them for a broken light and in the end the boy in the village who ends up falling in love with Chi-Chi. This could explain the fetishization of the visual and the importance appearance has in determining what is real and what is not. Women in the movie realize the masquerade from the �rst sight, but they do not expose the queens. These di�erent perceptions could symbolize the whole debate: men and their perception of drag queens as ‘real’ women expose a heteronormative naturalized view on gender, whereas women, who are able to see that those ‘real’ women are actually drag queens re�ect the possibly subversive realization of gender being peformative. Choosing women to represent the recognition of gender masquerade and drawing a picture of solidarity (women do not expose drag queens) echoes with Butler’s theory that femininity is not a choice but a compulsory practice which if not performed well can be punishable. Therefore men who symbolize the heterosexual and patriarchal order would punish the exposed queens. And this becomes true when policeman that stops Vida, Noxeema and Chi-Chi in the middle of the night asks Vida to step out of the car not because he wants to give them a �ne but because he is attracted to her. Tension is very high at this moment and it is resolved before policeman sees that Vida’s driving licence is under the name of Eugene. This is the moment when Vida comes out of the female character and becomes Eugene to protect himself/herself after policeman pulls up her dress, grabs the crotch and exposes her. According to Peggy Phelan ‘fundamental to passing is the binary of the seen and the unseen, the visible and the invisible’. (Phelan 1996: 101) And this is really obvious not only in the case of policeman but also with Bobby Ray a boy who falls in love with Ms Chi-Chi. Both men assume that what they see is what they get, that feminine appearance presupposes a certain sex. The movie gets very close to the idea of non subversive drag when we see all three drag queens teaching a teenage girl how to be feminine. Before the date they show her an old Hollywood movie with famous actress Anne Baxter and tell her to pay attention to actress’s behaviour. After they �nish putting make up and dressing the girl Chi-Chi paradoxically tells her to ‘be honest with him, he deserves that’. A girl then is left standing in a theatrical pose. Bobby Ray a boy she likes approaches her from the back and confuses her with Ms Chi-Chi. From this example of queens teaching femininity to a girl we can see, as Judith Butler said that ‘the queen will out-woman women’ (Butler 1993: 132). The ambivalence of this situation is very obvious. First it denatu-ralizes gender; we see that Bobby Lee, the teenage girl does not have innate femininity and that she has to be taught feminine behaviour and she is being taught by drag queens who perform femininity long enough to know the secrets of successful masquerade. This discovery is very important and could lead to subversion of naturalized gender norms. But there is another part of it, completely unproductive in the means of subversion, but productive in the frame of perpetuating and idealizing gender norms. The paradox of drag queens telling a girl how to perform womanliness and be honest at the same time is striking. They do not question the masquerade or look critically at it; rather they follow the patterns of gender norms which as Butler write ‘operates by requiring the embodiment of certain ideals of femininity and masculinity, ones that are almost always related to the idealization of hetero-sexual bond’ (Butler 1993: 231-232). Bobby Lee’s performance is successful and it does lead to a heterosexual bond with Bobby Ray and there is nothing subversive about it. He falls in love with a ‘drag queen’, with a performed gender.
8
Butler says that ‘there are forms of drag that heterosexual culture produces for itself’ (Butler 1993: 126). And the scene towards the end of the movie re�ects this argument literally, when after successful acting ‘as a woman’ Bobby Lee is asked by her date to have a dance with him, and as the camera moves further we see more and more (heterosexual) couples joining the �rst couple and they are being watched by all three drag queens and Vida says that sometimes ‘all you need is a fairy’ (and both meanings of the word are at play here). The reidealization of heterosexual gender norms and probably desires is obvious, but at the same time there are moments in the �lm that truly challenge the realness of gender. A �lm is juggling with subversion and appropriation of norms. Towards the end of the movie, where the policeman comes into the little village where the car of three queens broke down, a homophobic prince who is carrying a proof, a lost shoe of Chi-Chi (he is not coming to �nd Cinderella) feeling angry and carrying a shot gun, demands for drag queens to come out so no one would get hurt. A woman comes out wearing a veil and as she approaches the policeman she opens up the veil and says ‘I am a drag queen’. All the women from the town (and later men) gather around her and start telling him that they are drag queens. This moment in the movie is very powerful; obviously they are doing this to protect the ‘real’ drag queens, none the less, the statement is possibly subversive if a viewer (character) starts questioning the meaning of this utterance. As Butler says, sometimes the ambivalence is a mix of appropriation and subversion at the same time; the tension can stay unresolved or it can end up succumbing to the norm (Butler 1993: 128). When village people push the policeman out of the town he screams ‘you have no idea how dangerous these people are’ (meaning the drag queens). He is heteronormativity itself letting people know about the ‘dangers’ of possible subversion of gender norms. In the end a viewer is left with this unresolved tension that Butler talks about. On one hand we can see that gender norms were challenged when a wife of the violent husband that Ms Vida helped out, admits she had known all along that Vida and other girls were drag queens but this did not bother her and when the queens leave the town a wife says that she does not think of Vida as a man or a woman but rather as an angel. Stripping one from ones gender/s is quite revolutionary and threatening to a system that is built on naturalized gender binaries. But then the movie ends with Ms Chi-Chi winning the drag queen beauty pageant and she is being crowned by their idol Julie Newmar, an actress and sex symbol from the 50’s – 60’s. This crown, put on Chi-Chi’s head by an ‘ultimate’ woman suggests that Ms Chi-Chi is getting an award for her hard work of doing gender and this is a mere appropriation of heteronor-mative gender ideals. In conclusion I would like to say that this �lm is a very accurate illustration of Judith Butler’s concept of ambivalent drag. The movie showed how drag is not necessarily subversive and even though a ‘man in a dress’ seems revolutionary it might not be threatening to heteronormativity at all. Characters wish to be ‘real’, to pass, and to look like women as much as possible. With their performance they appropriate and reidealize gender norms instead of question-ing them. At the same time we hear a woman saying that she is a drag queen and this exposes the �ctive originality of gender and its performative nature. We are left with the ambivalence of the movie (drag performance) and it makes it hard to decide how it would result in a future – as appropriation of gender norms or their subversion.
austėja banytė[email protected]
http://notanotherfashionblog.com
9
10
intarpas/
intarpas/
Laimonas Zakasgime neaisku kada
glitchr - www.facebook.com/glitchr - glitchr.tumblr.com
15
17
intarpas/
19
tadas bujanauskas
http://pillowsvslegs.weebly.com
http://www.flickr.com/mokslasirvisata
http://kukurei.blogspot.com
20
Pasidaryk pats – kultūra, kve-pianti laisveDaugelį metų pasaulis „Pasidaryk pats“ (angl.: DIY, do it yourself ) kultūrą atmetė kaip skirtą uždaroms socialinėms hipių arba pankų grupelėms.
Tačiau, smunkant ekonomikai, žmonės ėmė ieškoti kelių tapti nuo jos kuo mažiau priklausomais. Taip šiuolaikinio žmogaus akiratyje atsirado „Pasidaryk pats“ kultūra – visai nenauja, netgi neoriginali, tačiau be galo praktiška ir susilaukianti vis daugiau sekėjų.
„Pasidaryk pats“ – trumpa istorija
Jeigu žiūrėsime labai plačiai, „Pasidaryk pats“ atsirado kartu su žmonėmis. Būtent tada, kai pirmieji žmonės pamažu išmoko užkurti ugnį, gaminti ūkio padargus ar statyti namus. Žodžiu, viską darė ir darėsi patys sau. Bėgant amžiams, žmogus darėsi gudresnis ir savo buičiai palengvinti surasdavo vis daugiau būdų. Pradžioje gamino vieni kitiems, mainydavo, tuomet išrado viską už juos darančias mašinas. Ir, štai, amžius po amžiaus, atsiradome mes. Šiuolaikinės technologi-jos jau daro beveik viską, ką anksčiau kūrė žmogus. Skelbiamės esą laisvi, tačiau nieko nebedarome patys: maistas paruoštas, namas pastatytas, drabužiai pasiūti, mašinos palengvins mąstymą ar socialinius santykius – tik rinkis ir mokėk pinigus. Kitaip sakant – dirbk, pirk ir mirk.
Vienas pirmųjų iš moderniosios visuomenės apie besaikį vartotojiškumą dar 1845 metais (!) prabilo amerikiečių �losofas Henris Davidas Thoreau. Jis, pasišlykštėjęs tuometinės visuomenės tuštumu, metė viską ir pasitraukė gyventi į miškus. Prie upės susirentė namelį, pasisodino daržovių ir be perstojo rašė esė, kurios vėliau sugulė į knygą „Voldenas, arba gyvenimas miške“. Ši knyga, po daugiau nei pusantro šimto metų, tapo tikru „Pasidaryk pats“ kultūros manifestu.
Žinoma, H. D. Thoreau yra tik vienas pavyzdys iš būrio „Pasidaryk pats“ aktyvistų pasaulio istorijoje. Prisiminkime 1900 metais JAV susiformavusį menininkų ir amatininkų judėjimą, kuris visiškai atsiskyrė nuo industrinės visuomenės; ar pagal tikrus faktus pastatytą �lmą „Into the wild“. Ir viskas vien tam, kad pajustume tikrąją laisvę.
Kažkur apie 1960 metus „Pasidaryk pats“ įgavo pagreitį Didžiojoje Britanijoje. Pamažu formavosi ištisas judėjimas. Pirmieji „Pasidaryk pats“ festivaliai, stovyklos, kūrėsi muzikinės grupės. Tiesa, daugiausia sekėjų „Pasidaryk pats“ atsirado pankų ir hipių judėjimuose. Britų pankroko grupė „Crass“ kūrė pirmuosius „skvotus“-socialinius centrus, pirmieji iš lentų kalė scenas festivaliams ir panašiai.Vakarų šalyse, apie 1990 metus, „aukso gyslą“ pagavo ir masinė medija: pradėtos transliuoti įvairios žmones, atrodo, paprastų dalykų mokančios televizijos laidos, leidžiami teminiai žurnalai, knygos...
Galbūt todėl, kad „Pasidaryk pats“ idėjos rišasi su „madinga“ tema – ekologija, dabar šiam judėjimui skiriamas itin didelis dėmesys. Galbūt žmonės pavargo būti visiškai priklausomi, galbūt iš neturėjimo ką veikti, tačiau „Pasidaryk pats“ tampa vis aktualesnis. Pagaliau griaunamas mitas, esą, „Pasidaryk pats“ skirta tik pankams arba hipiams. Judėjimas beldžiasi ir į paprastų žmonių buitį.„Pasidaryk pats“ veidas arba keletas įdomesnių faktų
Vienas iš daugelio „Pasidaryk pats“ veidų – dar į lietuvių kalbą neišvertas terminas „fryganizmas“. „Fryganai“ yra tam tikri sanitarai – jie surenka tai, ką kiti išmeta, sutvarko, perkonstruoja ir panaudoja sau. Kuomet visuomenėje galioja taisyklė: „Sugedo? Netaisyk, mes lauk ir pirk naują!“, „fryganai“ daro viską, kad kiek įmanoma daugiau išmetamų daiktų būtų naudojami. Jūs net neįsivaizduojate, kiek gyventojų į pasaulio šiukšlynus išmeta gero maisto ir technikos vien todėl, kad ji prarado prekinę išvaizdą. Ir neklyskite manydami, jog išmetamas maistas – sugedęs, technika neveikia, baldai sulūžę, o rūbai visiškai sunešioti. Vakaruose prekybos centrai išmeta brangiausią vyną dėl pažeistos etiketės, o dviračiai metami vien dėl nuleistos padangos.
„Fryganai“ veikia visuomenės viduje, sunku patikėti, tačiau dabar įmanomas ir radikalus atsiskyrimas nuo vartotojiškos kultūros. Štai, Meksikos revoliucinis judėjimas – zapatistai – jau seniai atsiskyrė, sukūrė savo bendruomenę: mokosi, gamina, mainosi tarpusavyje, žodžiu, viską daro patys. Jie visiškai nepriklausomi nuo visuomenės. Apie juos dažniausiai sužinome tik iš vadinamų „fair trade“ tinklais plintančių zapatistų gaminamų produktų, ypač kavos.
Be visa to, pasaulyje apstu „Pasidaryk pats“ festivalių, kuriuose viskas – nuo tualeto iki scenos – padaroma žmonių rankomis. Grupių, kurios pačios organizuoja turus, pačios siuva dėklus kompaktiniams diskams. Ir žmonių, kurie iš šiukšlių, šieno pasistato puikiausius namus.Turėkite omenyje, kad „Pasidaryk pats“ kultūra labai plati. Ji gali apimti paaugles, gaminančias dekupažinius auskarus, tūkstančius žmonių pritraukiančius festivalius ar namo statybą. Kiekvienas dalykas, ką tu ir aš padarome patys, o ne perkame jau seniau pagamintą, turtina mus „Pasidaryk pats“ dvasia. Pasitikėkime savimi ir, kaip sakė H. D. Thoreau, netapkime mūsų kurtų įrankių įrankiais.
Pasidaryk pats – kultūra, kvepianti laisveF
Ateinu praeitą dieną į katedros aikšte staiga labai susigėstu pamiršau su kuo atėjau susitikti Niekaip negaliu prisiminti Po penkiolikos minučių pradedu ruoštis pykti save suvaldau o kas jeigu at jau susitikti su mergina? Merginos juk turi teisę vėluoti bent 30min po keturiasdešimt penkių minučių Pasakau sau NA VISKAS GALIU PYKTI! Pradedu pykti pykstu ant visko ant juokingos eglės ant nepasirodančio sniego ant žmogaus neatėjusios susitikti KAIP TAIP GALIMA? AŠ JUK TIK PAMIRŠAU <SU KUO ATĖJAU SUSITIKTI> o jis/ji net neatėjo toliau pykau pykau ant savęs pykau atn (taip, padariau klaidą ir ką? Pykdamas =mogus juk turi teisę klįsti)tv pykau ant kaimečių prakeikiau miestiėčius pykau ir ant TAVĘS! Staiga Booooooooooooooooooom“£$%^&*()_£$%^&*() _)(*&^&*()BOOOOM*&^ ATSIPEIKĖJU SUPRANTU JOG KĄ TIK IŠLIEJAU VISĄ PYKTI TIKSLIAU PERPYKAU Paprastai kalbant išsipykau. Jaučiuosi taip lyg po pirties būčiau šokęs į eketę ežere ir dabar guliu švarioje lovoje toks tyras nekaltas ir švarus. Prieš užmigdamas noriu tau padėkoti kad ir kas tu bebūtumei AČIŪ, jog padėjai nugalėti pykti AČIŪ, jog neatėjai jeigu nori, jog padėkočiau asmeniškai – pranešk man. Jeigu nori likti anonimu – gerbiu tavo apsisprendimą. Labanakt.
Dom
as R
aiby
sac
iuka
dras
ote@
gmai
l.com
21
intarpas/
reklama:
www.kukurei.blogspot.com/
http://whitecardboard.blogspot.com/
--------------------->
--------------------->
23
