* This email is sent via the PSi-Extra mail-list. 'Reply' will send your response to that list *
-----------------------------------------------------------

Hi Laura,

Well, I might be right about the ties between
visibility and obscenity, but I might also be wrong.
When it comes to defining "obscenity," people
typically get offended by that which they can see:
that which is explicitly sexual, prurient,
heavy-handed, or otherwise difficult to watch. They
rarely object to what’s *not* offered on-screen or
on-stage. 
 
Consider public reactions to the 1963 premiere of
Flaming Creatures. In his recent book, _On Jack
Smith’s Flaming Creatures and Other Secret-Flix of
Cinemaroc_ (2001), J. Hoberman hails it as “the only
American avant-garde film whose reception
approximates the scandals that greeted L’Age d’Or or
Zero de Conduite” (36). This film was “reviled,
rioted over, and banned” (36) for its graphic
displays of penises, bare bosoms, and “abnormal"
sexual activity; it was not condemned for what it
did not show. 

However, there are complications to my claim about
the connection between scandal and visibility, for
Flaming Creatures actually *failed* to present forms
of pornography that normative viewers find
stimulating, despite moral objections. As one
anonymous American senator (Strom Thurmond)
explained: “That movie was so sick, I couldn’t even
get aroused.” And as Hoberman justly concludes, the
film was ultimately banned not merely for showing
sex, but rather for its “extravagantly queer”
depictions of male genitalia: 

Those rudely brandished dicks, neither wholly erect
nor entirely flaccid, are only penises. As funny as
it is poignant, Flaming Creatures is guilty of a
criminal disrespect more serious than burning the
flag. In so casually representing the male organ, it
desecrates the underlying symbol of all power
structures, including the U.S. Senate. (51) 


But now you've got me thinking about the
"non-visible" aspects of Abramovic's re-performance
of SEEDBED. I'm thinking about "extravagant
queerness," and the way this phenomenon might play
itself out in her re-do of SEEDBED. Most people
think that other people get sexually aroused by the
way you look: nice butt, tight abs, great hair, sexy
smile, etc... 

But Abramovic is apparently going to try to turn
herself on via Acconci's method, which was to
*listen* to peoples' footsteps/bodies move
throughout the gallery space. He would comment on
how he wanted them to stop so he could press against
them, squeeze them into corners, press his eyes
against their hair, etc... In the transcript of his
piece, he talks about "following" spectators in
visual terms, as if he can "see" them. But he can't:
he can only *hear* them and their movements. That is
a pretty "queer" and unconventional way of getting
turned on, and perhaps in itself might be deemed as
"scandalous." 

I mean, it *is* sort of an act of "desecration" with
respect to our cultural standards of desire. To
think that someone can get turned on by people
he/she can't see, has no idea what they look like,
if they are hideously appalling or conventionally
gorgeous... What sort of "weirdo" could orgasm to
the "image" (or footsteps, rather) of someone whom
they can't actually see? 
[But then again, the Internet has changed a lot of
this "desecration" of conventional desire: what
sorts of "weirdos" would have cyber-sex or hook up
on live blind dates with people whom they meet
on-line]?   

The other thing Abramovic might get in trouble for
(if anything) is the VOCAL/VERBAL component of her
piece. Unlike female genetalia, which does not seem
to be "offensive" or "powerful" enough in itself (in
constrast to the penis) to warrant charges of "legal
obscenity," the female VOICE having orgasims might
pack a more "potent" punch. Perhaps the sounds of a
woman coming could be defined as prurient, offensive
to the general community, and lacking in redeeming
social value? 

Will viewers/listeners "know" it is "obscene" when
they hear it? Will they be able to discern anything
non-prurient or brimming with social value in
Abramovic's utterances? It's hard to say, but when I
hear the soundtracks for porn movies, I don't focus
on those aspects. And if I ever played an audio tape
of a porn film somewhere in public, I'm sure plenty
of community members would be very offended and/or
pruriently turned on.

Then again, it might be a day of silence, for all we
know. Lots of people are quiet, and if Abramovic is
one of those people, then there will be nothing to
complain about: nothing to see, and nothing to hear.
You'll just have to "feel" it in a Ray Williams
"structures of feeling" kind of way, or imagine it's
happening. But on the other hand, if she follows
Acconci's transcript, even without incorporating any
sounds of her own, that could definately be
construed as offensive, prurient, and possibly
lacking in social value... it's kind of a gamble.

I would never call the mayor on her! Are you
kidding? Unless I thought he'd enjoy the
performance, of course, which he very well might.
 


> You might be right about visible genitalia and
masturbation.  My 
> memory from
> studying Constitutional Law "back in the day" (as
my goddaughter 
> says) is
> that pornography is defined by community standards
and is a "you 
> know it
> when you see it" thing, including those
definitions of no redeeming 
> socialvalue and causes prurient thought.  I'm
remembering now some 
> place I saw on
> tv that was doing Shakespeare with strippers to
get around 
> obscenity laws.
> Hmmm . . . . 
> 
> Having the support of the Guggenheim no doubt
helps, as opposed to 
> doing it
> in a small gallery somewhere.  Lots of neocons see
no redeeming 
> social value
> in modern "degenerate" art.  Remember Guiliani's
attempt to shut 
> down that
> show with the British Artists and the buffalo dung
used on the 
> virgin Mary
> painting.  (That was shocking to me because out
here in the "wilds" of
> Minnesota, no one batted an eye at that piece at
all.) Again, just 
> becauseyou have the right to do something doesn't
mean someone's 
> not going to try
> and stop you.  
> 
> I think if she hasn't already staged it, or if she
stages it again, 
> youshould call the mayor's office and complain
about Abramovic's 
> piece and see
> what happens.  That's they only way we'll ever
know for sure.  
> Let's get
> scientific about this.
> 
> Hahahahaha.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Performance Studies international Extra
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Theresa K Smalec
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:07 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PSI-EXTRA] Naked Barbies et al
> 
> * This email is sent via the PSi-Extra mail-list.
'Reply' will send 
> yourresponse to that list *
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hi Laura,
> 
> Great to hear that your performance plans are moving
> forward. Keep us posted.
> It's also interesting how we totally diverge in our
> recollections of what happened in Washington Square
> Park. It wasn't even that long ago, but you saw cops
> and I saw chairs. I do recall the Parks' warden
> yelling at the performers to put the clothes back on
> the dolls, though... so at least I know we were at
> the same event. :)
> 
> Anyhow, according to the article below, images of a
> woman masturbating 
> (even when aired on public tv) are not "legally
> obscene."  However, when a male clown does the deed
> on the same program, there is  major trouble. Poor
> Crotchy: when he unleashed his "cobra" on
> unsuspecting viewers, a lot more than the ratings
> went through the roof.
> 
> Crotchy the Masturbating Clown: Testing the Limits
> of Self-Expression
> http://www.gettingit.com/article/569
> 
> But in case you think I'm simply being funny, and
> that this article has 
> no redeeming educational value, think again. It
> provides a useful 
> definition of "obscenity" that I think would exempt
> Marina Abramovic 
> from being charged with such a crime. Check it out:
> 
> Obscenity has three criteria: (1) the dominant theme
> of the material 
> taken as a whole must appeal to a prurient interest
> in sex, (2) the 
> material is patently offensive because it offends
> contemporary 
> community standards relating to the description or
> representation of 
> sexual matters, and (3) the material is utterly
> without redeeming 
> social value. 
> 
> 1. The dominant theme of "Seven Easy Pieces"
> revolves around the 
> theoretical, practical, legal, ethical, and other
> possibilities of "re-
> performance." The theme of this material as a whole
> does not appeal to 
> a prurient interest in sex. Even her re-performance
> of the SEEDBED 
> piece does not appeal to a prurient interest in sex:
> she's not 
> literally *having* sex with anyone; she won't
> *visibly* be having sex 
> with herself; and masturbating women are not
> "legally obscene" anyway, 
> so I think she'd have to grow a penis for this to be
> considered a 
> crime. 
> 
> 2. It would be hard to argue that Abramovic's
> material is "patently 
> offensive because it offends contemporary community
> standards relating 
> to the description or representation of sexual
> matters." A woman/artist masturbating in a highbrow
> musuem? Realistically, who in Manhattan is going to
> be offended by that? I bet it would be
> standing-room-only if more members of the general
> public knew who Vito Acconic is, or about the
> specific performance of his that Abramovic plans to
> re-do. 
> 
> The other thing is we're talking about *Abramovic*
> here: she's an elusive entity unto herself. Karen
> Finley and Penny Arcade "offend community standards"
> on a regular basis, but Marina Abramovic? It's sort
> of like trying to imagine Martha Stewart advertizing
> feminine hygeine products. Maybe it's because she's
> slightly older, and not known for past obscenities,
> and suavely European, but who would call the cops on
> her? (Then again, who would call the cops on Martha
> Stewart: I guess Abramovic is an ideal target from
> that perspective). 
> 
> 3. The material she's performing is obviously not
> "without redeeming 
> social value." Why would the Guggenheim of all
> places agree to her 
> staging it there if her material was abject,
> irredeemable, and lacking in social value?
> 
> So in general, I don;t think Abramovic has much to
> worry about. But then again, in this age, you really
> can't be sure. Look what happened to Spongebob and
> his friend to Starfish, or to Buster the Rabbit, or
> to Monica Lewinsky and Clinton. And it is pretty
> darn unusual for a woman to be doing this act in the
> first place in such a "public" way, so that alone
> might invite some complaints from the Ann Coulter
crowd.
> 
> 
> .  > 2.  Of course, we can't prove who's "right"
> about a piece like what
> > Abramovic is doing, but public masturbation, even
> if you're 
> > hiding, is
> > pretty much considered obscenity and if someone
> complains, the 
> > results can
> > very pretty widely.  If she does that piece in NY,
> it's a lot 
> > different than
> > if she does it in a gallery somewhere in
> Mississippi and the 
> > outcome will be
> > very different.  My point in bringing that up was
> simply to say 
> > that with
> > certain types of performance, it's important to
> think through the 
> > angles and
> > the consequences.
> > 
> > 3.  I disagree with the judge in that I don't
> think England was so 
> > far out
> > of her senses when she did those things.  She
> certainly wasn't 
> > alone in
> > doing them and again, she's going to be singled
> out rather than 
> > questioningthe mindset she was trained to adopt.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Performance Studies international Extra
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Theresa K Smalec
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 8:22 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [PSI-EXTRA] "Is Everything a
> Performance?"
> > 
> > * This email is sent via the PSi-Extra mail-list.
> 'Reply' will 
> > send your
> > response to that list *
> >
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Yes: I think you need an audience to have a
> > performance. Regarding the "hidden" performances
> > that Schechner and Turner carried out, those might
> > best be defined as "dark play." But Schechner and
> > Turner were still each others' audience, so they
> > each had an audience of one. 
> > 
> > I guess you're right that just because Falun Gong
> > isn't actually torturing people, that does not mean
> > they aren't *performing* conceptual torture. Maybe
> > *we* are performing conceptual "torture" right now
> > by sending all these emails to the list and
> > cluttering up peoples' mailboxes? :) 
> > 
> > I don't think you're right about the masturbation:
> > again, if it can't be seen, how can it be
> > prosecuted? You need some sort of evidence, don't
> > you? The authorities would have to catch Abramovic
> > red-handed. That might be hard to do if she's under
> > a ramp, though I guess you never know... But it's
> > perversely amusing to imagine the Masturbation Squad
> > running around, looking for people playing with
> > themselves in public spaces: "Hold it right there,
> > buddy! Get your hands up, and out of your pants!" 
> > 
> > You mis-remember the Barbie incident. Or maybe I'm
> > the one who's casting it in an idylic light these
> > days? The way I remember it, the Christian youth
> > group informed City Parks that we were abusing naked
> > Barbies, and City Parks came over to check it out.
> > Some of us got nervous about the potential for
> > police action, and went over to explain to the City
> > Parks folks that we were doing a safe-sex
> > demonstration. At that point, to my shock, he leader
> > of the crew told his men to go get us some CHAIRS so
> > that people could watch more closely! He thought we
> > were performing a valuable service that the
> > Christian kids could learn from. But being the
> > paranoid souls that we PS-ers are, the people
> > performing sex with the dolls were already
> > high-tailing it out of the park. I'm serious: I only
> > saw chairs coming, no cops.
> > 
> > The freedom to perform naked Barbies! Most children
> > have it, but not us. You're right, of course, that
> > it's good to have partners in performance crime. If
> > you come to NY with your interrogations, I'll be
> > happy to help you capture people! No seriously, why
> > don't you plot out what you need, where you plan to
> > do it, and what services we might be able to offer
> you. 
> > 
> > I was thinking about Nao Bustamante's work in
> > relation to your idea about putting yourself or
> > others in a cage and questioning them. She often
> > performs situations where she asks audience members
> > to do disconcerting things to her. At the Encuentro,
> > she did this performance with water bags stuck all
> > over her body; she was covered from head to toe, and
> > looked like the Michelin Tire Man. Audience members
> > were given plastic picks to "stab" her with, and the
> > water bags would burst and spill onto the floor. She
> > started to panic at one point because so many people
> > were surrounding her, stabbing her, and she couldn't
> > breathe! 
> > 
> > I found her performance bizarre and unsettling:
> > partly because of the waste of water in the context
> > of a conference where someone else was talking about
> > transnational, life-and-death "water wars" for the
> > resource. But it was also the eagerness with which
> > people stabbed her, and the sight of that seepage.
> > And then, I kept thinking about how delighted NYU
> > would be if the water damaged the brand new floor in
> > the Lubin Auditorium... but she had a spotter to
> > make sure she was alright. So you might want someone
> > to watch over your process, and of course to let you
> > out of your cage when the interrogations are over.
> > 
> > Anyhow, it is interesting to think about torture as
> > "performance," because those being tortured are not
> > supposed to *have* an audience if things go
> > according to plan. No one is supposed to know; even
> > the torturers themselves are not supposed to
> > "understand" that they are doing terrible things.
> > Lyndie England is a case in point: the judge thinks
> > she may not have realized her crime. And if the guy
> > who sent those pictures home hadn't felt the need to
> > become a moral audience, then proabably no one
> > *would* "know." (Except for the people who got
> > tortured). I still don't think you can call this
> > stuff a performance: it's a crime against humanity.
> > "Performance" downplays the crime and the
> > reality/actuality of the violence; regardless of the
> > possible theoretical arguements for using the word
> > "performance" in this context, I don't believe it's
> > helpful to anyone except the torturers, and perhaps
> > our fragile imaginations.
> > 
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> > 
> > For all subscription configurations (suspensions /
> leaving the 
> > list / digest
> > functions etc), use the following link:
> > 
> >
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=psi-extra&A=1
> > 
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> > 
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> > 
> > For all subscription configurations (suspensions /
> leaving the 
> > list / digest
> > functions etc), use the following link:
> > 
> >
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=psi-extra&A=1
> > 
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> > 
> 
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> 
> For all subscription configurations (suspensions /
leaving the list 
> / digest
> functions etc), use the following link:
> 
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=psi-extra&A=1
> 
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> 
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> 
> For all subscription configurations (suspensions /
leaving the list 
> / digest
> functions etc), use the following link:
> 
>
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=psi-extra&A=1
> 
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For all subscription configurations (suspensions / leaving the list / digest
functions etc), use the following link:

http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=psi-extra&A=1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------