on 30/5/03 2:43 PM, Mike Frank at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>> I think the problem with Kevin's professor is his narrow understanding
> of
>>> camp. Notwithstanding its popular image, to suggest that it is something
>>> that either is, needs to be, or can be, "heterosexualised" neglects both
> the
>>> delightfully complex idea of camp and its rich potential beyond the
> fairly
>>> confined discourses of gay and straight performance analysis.
>
> i'm just a little puzzled by the above, as i've been a little puzzled for
> many
> years now by the concept of camp itself . . . damien seems to admit that
> the "popular usage" of the term centers certain "confined discourses"
> of sexuality -- and this is more or less the way i've always understood
> the term . . . to suggest that there is inherent in the term a
> "delightfully
> complex idea" that is somehow not there in the "popular usage" seems to
> presuppose an odd idea of language -- that the term can mean something
> that the people who use it don't mean in using it . . . my guess is that
> no
> one on this list [or, to be safe, virtually no one on this list] has any
> interest
> in essentializing language in that way, so i find it hard to sort these
> claims
> out
Mice,
I suppose I may not have been clear. For me, camp is inadequately
pigeon-holed by the statement Kevin's tutor made. I think there is a popular
use that treats it as just such a pigeon-holed notion, and it's this use
that the term 'heterosexualised' is meant to refer to, as if camp cannot be
equated with heterosexuality. Not only is this, in my opinion, difficult to
maintain in any case, but it misrepresents the fact that (IMO) camp is
itself a reflection of the relationship between changing 'public faces' of
sexuality in popular culture. I think camp to certain extent reflects
heterosexuality anyway, so the notion of it being claimed, or appropriated,
is redundant.
Similarly, I'm puzzled that you jibe with " no one on this list [or, to be
safe, virtually no one on this list] has any interest in essentializing
language in that way". I think most people on this list would be, or are,
interested in the ways that slippery notions are solidified (frozen?) by
culture - it's a discussion that often occurs about other terms. So in fact,
I think most of the list is in fact interested in the *essentialisation* of
language. Essentialisation, however, was not my intent - quite the opposite
- so I apologise if it seemed that way.
I would have thought that the way we deal with meaning in culture - that
objects and words have meaning beyond those consciously expressed - is
exactly the sort of thing that has been the staple pedagogy of film studies
for the last twenty years. Isn't, after all, psychoanalysis a method of
discussing whether a "term can mean something that the people who use it
don't mean in using it", amongst other methods.
I just think Kevin's tutor's appraisals of Moulin Rouge, popular culture,
and camp, are a bit narrow to be helpful. A statement that ties (or
essentialises?) camp to a particular sexuality (or its public face) alone is
exactly the sort of statement I'd like to see discussed.
Who cares, Moulin Rouge was crap anyway.
It's Friday afternoon, anyone for a pint?
Damian
|