Liz

As the 'someone' (I've always wanted to be one of those - it's
satisfyingly/perturbingly like being no-one) who originally quoted the quote
in a post, I think the question about context is that of what context the
passage has in thhe issue of AE. Now I've just been mulling over it and I
can't really say, tho' Tonks and Roberts are two poets AE had an abiding
interest in, as the 'footnote' occurs immediately after a series of
references at the end of the prose section of the magazine which aims to
take an overview of socialist poetry in Britain since the thirties. The AE
issue title is: 'Poetry and Socialism/ Massive transfers from rich to poor'.
It is significant that the by no means angelic exhaust was one of a small
number of poetry mags of the mid-to-late nineties that developed as the Tory
control weakened and have since, with a certain amount of arts funding
bodies assistance, collapsed as the Blair goverment took over and the status
quo re-asserted itself. The demise of AE was heroically assisted too by
certain parties who may be/have been on certain familiar lists.
The question about _viewpoint_ , that the piece does assume a male point of
view, is telling, and does raise questions of the article/quote. It might of
relevance tho' to say one should not assume that the author is necesarily
heterosexual. Th e quote begins with 'Interesting as Wollheim's idea is, AE
has to observe this is a minefield', which I think I omitted from the
original posting.

cheers

david b


----- Original Message -----
From: Liz Kirby <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2001 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: body art and footnotes a gender


> Alison wrote this
>
> I think he does - does this mean you're not a Christian, Liz?
>
> this was an unexpected question! I have missed something. (Probably a
> joke that I havent caught!)
>
> The ans is no - though I am a Quaker and a Roman Catholic (lapsed - with
> might explain my attraction to the Magdalen!)
>
> I do feel there is a point where a single focus on the body doubles back
on
> itself
> and becomes its own prison.
>
> Well yes - because a body isnt a single thing.
>
> But I can't help feeling suspicious of the
> piece... for one thing, in the quotation the "reader" (observer) is
> contructed as exclusively male. What happens if there is a female
> onlooker/reader? What happens if the body which is "presented"
> (represented?) is not the "night club singer" passively offered up for
> consumption, but aging, incontinent, aggressive, articulate,
> non-comformable, funny, all manner of things which bodies are?
>
> yes yes - this is exactly what I was reacting to! Looking for a model
less
> passive - to make, to do, to exceed.
>
> What is the dynamic of repulsion?
>
> I took it to mean something like disgust (Kristeva?) that breaks
> boundaries, overwhelms limits and so on. The return of what is repressed
> and rejected in its most extreme form. Which happens in the body (but
> doesn't everything?)
>
> Is that available to women (say, in the sense
> Genet might use it?)
>
> We surely have different senses for't (think of blood - men never shed
> blood except by violence - though I am bothered now because this sounds
> like biological determinism, which is not what I mean)
>
> Is there any escape from the consuming male gaze
> which assumes that the body is offered up for its valuing alone?
>
> we could just ignore it! (I know that's simplistic - but I am kind of
> tired of this double-bind, and really what else can we do but get on with
> what we want to make?)
>
> How
> many of the redefinings he asks for have already been offered, and are
> being ignored?
>
> Well that's quite true - the piece itself I think was a good hearted
> attempt to think around some of these issues - (it was Andrew Duncan, from
> Angel Exhaust and someone posted a long quotation earlier in the week) AD
> was saying that these are issues that need to be addressed and his
> intention was 'on the side of women' - but I think he was so busy watching
> his nightclub singer he didn't watch what he was saying!
>
> Liz