1. Some of the words that indicated the kind of reaction we had to the word resistance : Halting, Divergencies, Reduction, Re-Combination, Reclamation, Re-Arrangement, Reconstruction, Recitation, Synthesis, Appropriation, Refutation, Malappropriation, Distortion...Ultimately, we defined it and isolated it as either a positive active force or reaction against another active/acting force (presence, institution, tradition, expectation, initiation, designation, alienation, etc) or a force of negation which is more passive, a resistance to an established entity through inaction, refusal, non-participation, deviation, willed-alienation, etc (boycott for example).
Also, if it is to be an act of resistance it must maintain its literalness as an act, as in, not just a potentiality but a manifestation or employment of some idea in the outward world (materialist dialectics vs abstract dialectics). Although, we did agree that thoughts can be resistant insomuch as they are considered acts themselves.
2. If thought can be a form of resistance then scale seems difficult to determine. We cannot even locate thought specifically so if we consider thought to be a means of resistance it would almost remove scope as a factor of consideration for resistance. We all know what we mean when we say 'big thoughts' or 'small thoughts', as in the scope of their importance (from mundane self-reflections to global idealisms), so even in the intangible material of thinking we can see an unlimited range of scale within this kind of resistance. Perhaps we could discuss this subject in class : if thought is active, what would art look like if the material it worked with was thought? Some intermediary is necessary, of course, as we cannot see into each other's minds, but what would be the best intermediary form for engaging with the 'real-time' or 'immediacy' of the process of thought? Would it be another invisible substance, like speech, or the unseen symbolism of gesture? If one wanted to explore resistance as form of thought, as an artist, how could one negotiate with thinking as a form, despite it's invisibility/indecipherability and its unpredictable directions/deviations, etc? It would almost seem like working with psycho-analysis as a medium, playing with inner motivation, expression, displacement. Interestingly, if thinking is a resistant form, and it could be THE resistant form since it supposedly precedes calculated/tactical action, how would the agencies of power/establishment counter-resist this, ie. since they cannot technologize a resistance through surveillance or containment of thought, does this not make thought an ideal means of resistance? So in this sense, education and ideology are the crucial battlegrounds (as everybody knows) but to what extent is it a workable form? Is it necessarily relegated to the unseen categories which latch onto to other representations/media? Can thought, in the purest sense, be worked with as a medium, as a form?
TANGENT! Sorry group!!!
3. Thinking, again.........we thought that silent omission was key here. Non-participation, non-ownership, non-consumption, non-listening, non-engagement are ways but these are all negative versions, not active invisible resistances. We discussed anonymity as a way of acting out without a specific visibility. The act would still be visible to other though, but the agent would possess a certain invisibility. Dreams were also mentioned as a silent form of inner resistance which are not available for others to see; dreams seem to be negotiations with the everyday, without intervention, without restriction, so in this sense they are formal engagements with reality outside of the constraints of norms or pressures that consciousness tends to follow. The silence of the imagination is one of the most subversive and invisible forms of resistance. A lot of our digressions on these questions seemed to go to the subjective realms, apparently. So spectacular approaches, which generally call to a large audience in an extremely sensational way (hypertrophic, exaggerated, hyper-emphatic), are like the opposite of the invisible approaches. Spectacle overwhelms from the outside. It approaches the subject and makes a meaning out of it often through sheer magnitude. It overwhelms by heightened notification. It depends and insists on visibility. While these more inner or unseen varieties have the subject approaching, either self-reflexively or towards the outside world, instead.
There are several invisible presences of resistance that go unnoticed, simply because they are absences. When you see people, places, and things, it is merely a surface value appreciation. You can't tell if the clothes someone wears are conscious resistances to some other potential choices (generic vs label) or if someone taking a bus is enacting a silent resistance (to car culture) or are forced into public transit by poverty. The same goes for all aspects of life which are not overtly politcal actions. Everything that is chosen implicitly speaks of convention or resistance, complacence or autonomy, or whatever. This is why the unseen existence of thought could be considered to be the most crucial form of resistance because it governs the more ambiguous presences in the day-to-day (including our presumptions about those outward forms).
4. Resistance to familiarity was pretty important here. Getting lost intentionally is a great way to resist the common or expected experiences in a given space. Investigation against established routes can shatter the directions expected and already carved into spaces, and our memory of how to navigate those spaces. Take a bus you've never taken before. Shut your eyes and get off at random. Or stay on a bus that you know and see where it ends and maybe go beyond the system's destinations. Resist routine, in social/public spaces/practices, and even in yourself. If you are making or performing art, say dance for example, you could resist the formalism of established codes by wearing unorthodox clothes within a traditional mode of dance (wear business casual while you are doing ballet).
Also, an important one was the resistance of organic processes, like sleep. If you ignore the common practiced behaviours of biological norms, like when society says bedtime is and how much sleep is required, you are resisting, in accordance with yourself. Also, there are unconscious resistances here - like when you have insomnia and sleep medication does not work as it is intended. In this case, the body is resisting on its own, contra-your-mind, if this distinction holds. Or physiological habits, like smoking. Addiction is another form of conformity located within the self. If you simply conform to your own traditions, like continuing to smoke as a persistant behaviourism, then you are being passive, in a sense, while you are being active.
Perhaps too much digression.
5. Bathroom graffitti conversations..................
6. One daily context of resistance mentioned was putting specific constraints on processes which are normally taken for granted (like Dogme filmmaking, where you are still making a movie, but severe limitations are imposed in order to adhere to a methodology which resists common approaches, expectations, executions, results). One person mentioned someone who refused to step on concrete for a whole day, despite having to be in public! The fact that this actually sounds impossible points to how entrenched certain aspects of spaces really are - like how assumed is it that you will come into contact with concrete when outdoors? It is almost compulsory!
I know some nudists..........they are bare resisters.
Another great example of initiated deviation in a common circumstance is throwing a party with a theme of acting - acting as the complete opposite of one's self, or as the complete opposite of what one perceives as the expected behaviour/personality that others have of you. This kind of self-analysis and playing with identity at something as commonplace as a party is a pretty neat example of this kind of resistance - taking a social gathering and making it a controlled event-resistance, both inner and public.
7. Time tends to be relative to the preparation, duration, and necessary reception of reactionist activities. Le Gai Savoir toys with time sensitivities excessively. Many of the images are dislocated and only appear subliminally or very shortly, which challenges the normative time-constraints of perception or reading of messages. The film forces us to question how meanings can be derived or destroyed in symbols when their presentation is ambiguous, re-contextualized, and especially limited in their on-screen-duration presence. If you examined a picture of Mao for 15 minutes it is conceivable that you could excavate all kinds of multiplicities of meaning from it as Mao as an entity has so many historical and social dimensions which are capable of signicifaction.............
Time, as far as history is concerned, is also important. How long do pardigms last, how long does it take for them to shift? The lines between evolutions are never distinct and they always serve as grounds for further change in the future.
8. 'FREEDOM', as a word, can be exploited infinitely, we all agreed.
9. Basically, we found that the most common type of prejudice which we were all guilty of was that of judging by appearances. Everyone does this as social navigation is difficult without SOME initial intuitive reaction to surface indicators. Our jobs, classes, interactions as consumers, and pretty much any association with things not deeply understood, depend of unsatisfying and insufficient presumptions which we use to quickly calculate 'appropriate response' or 'acceptable behaviour'. It is, ultimately, a catch-22 between social functionality and unfair supposition.
10. Everything in Le Gai Savoir.................
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment