Readings, Podcasts, References: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Ken Chen, [https://aaww.org/authenticity-obsession/ ‘Authenticity Obsession, or Conceptualism as Minstrel Show’], Asian American Writers’ Workshop, 11 June 2015 | Ken Chen, [https://aaww.org/authenticity-obsession/ ‘Authenticity Obsession, or Conceptualism as Minstrel Show’], Asian American Writers’ Workshop, 11 June 2015 | ||
Starting from Kenneth Goldsmiths' appropriation of the autopsy of police-murdered Michael Brown as a piece of conceptual poetry, Ken Chen asks challenging questions about the way this incident was not an accident. From reading this text, we understood that an anti-colonial, feminist practice of Open Content would need to formulate “a politics of appropriation”. Without it, it risks repeating the colonial/white (?) gesture of treating the world as resource, as primary, “raw” material, dry text, pure content, pure evidence, anthropology), to render it dumbly into things, mere material to own; a site of violation; or simply something to instrumentalize." <blockquote> "What is the line separating one writer as a poet of witness and another as a poet of expropriation — and what prevents either from being a producer of the kitsch of atrocity? Conceptual Poetry has no politics of appropriation. One could say that the movement’s major theoretical texts spend significantly more time discussing, say, John Cage, Sol Le Witt, and Walter Benjamin than they do the power relations of cultural exchange." Ken Chen </blockquote> | Starting from Kenneth Goldsmiths' appropriation of the autopsy of police-murdered Michael Brown as a piece of conceptual poetry, Ken Chen asks challenging questions about the way this incident was not an accident. From reading this text, we understood that an anti-colonial, feminist practice of Open Content would need to formulate “a politics of appropriation”. Without it, it risks repeating the colonial/white (?) gesture of treating the world as resource, as primary, “raw” material, dry text, pure content, pure evidence, anthropology), to render it dumbly into things, mere material to own; a site of violation; or simply something to instrumentalize." <blockquote> "What is the line separating one writer as a poet of witness and another as a poet of expropriation — and what prevents either from being a producer of the kitsch of atrocity? Conceptual Poetry has no politics of appropriation. One could say that the movement’s major theoretical texts spend significantly more time discussing, say, John Cage, Sol Le Witt, and Walter Benjamin than they do the power relations of cultural exchange." Ken Chen </blockquote> | ||
Cristina Rivera Garza (2020). The Restless Dead: Necrowriting and Disappropriation. | |||
Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press, 2020. | |||
<blockquote>Disappropriation critiques the appropriation of other’s voices for its own benefit, but instead: exposes the unequal exchange of labour that happens when collective experience is used for individual gain. What disappropriation does, is to restore the plurality of writing.</blockquote> | |||
We are curious how Garza's description of disappropriative practices could help us formulate a politics of re-use. Even if for Garza, disappropriation is based in writerly practice, what would disappropriation mean for other types of creative practice? | |||
Revision as of 12:01, 16 November 2024
Ken Chen, ‘Authenticity Obsession, or Conceptualism as Minstrel Show’, Asian American Writers’ Workshop, 11 June 2015
Starting from Kenneth Goldsmiths' appropriation of the autopsy of police-murdered Michael Brown as a piece of conceptual poetry, Ken Chen asks challenging questions about the way this incident was not an accident. From reading this text, we understood that an anti-colonial, feminist practice of Open Content would need to formulate “a politics of appropriation”. Without it, it risks repeating the colonial/white (?) gesture of treating the world as resource, as primary, “raw” material, dry text, pure content, pure evidence, anthropology), to render it dumbly into things, mere material to own; a site of violation; or simply something to instrumentalize."
"What is the line separating one writer as a poet of witness and another as a poet of expropriation — and what prevents either from being a producer of the kitsch of atrocity? Conceptual Poetry has no politics of appropriation. One could say that the movement’s major theoretical texts spend significantly more time discussing, say, John Cage, Sol Le Witt, and Walter Benjamin than they do the power relations of cultural exchange." Ken Chen
Cristina Rivera Garza (2020). The Restless Dead: Necrowriting and Disappropriation.
Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press, 2020.
Disappropriation critiques the appropriation of other’s voices for its own benefit, but instead: exposes the unequal exchange of labour that happens when collective experience is used for individual gain. What disappropriation does, is to restore the plurality of writing.
We are curious how Garza's description of disappropriative practices could help us formulate a politics of re-use. Even if for Garza, disappropriation is based in writerly practice, what would disappropriation mean for other types of creative practice?
