RuPaul's Drag Race Reflection

Latrice Royale and Dida Ritz Lip-Sync

            Strings and Bui’s article offers critical context for one of my favorite shows. The authors highlight the racialized constructs that dark-skinned contestants on RuPaul’s Drag Race are expected to uphold in order to succeed in the competition. This construct appears as what is considered a “protocol” of racial “realness,” or “authenticity.” At the same time, the objective of the show is meant to play with the fluidity of gender roles as drag queens. The light-skinned queens are encouraged to step outside the confines of gender and race, while the dark-skinned queens succeed only if they do so with gender while simultaneously personifying the “naturalized” racial stereotypes to which they have been pigeonholed by the judges. The third season seems to have set the height of this standard for the show, which is why I think it would be interesting to apply the same analyses to later seasons of RuPaul’s Drag Race.

Similar situations have arisen throughout the seasons. The “clique” notion of Heathers vs Boogers in Season 3 seems to have resurfaced in Season 5 with “Ro-Laska-Tox,” the clique named for three light-skinned queens, Roxxy Andrews, Alaska Thunderfvck, and Detox Icunt, at least until Michelle Visage, one of the judges, heavily chided them for forming the group (possibly due to the criticisms the show received from the third season).

An instance where a dark-skinned queen was encouraged to fulfill racialized roles is in the case of Latrice Royale from Season 4. She was regularly applauded for playing the role of a stereotyped black Southern Baptist woman, with hands lifted in the air, clapping, and singing “Jesus is a Biscuit/ Let him sop you up,” as if in church. In the “Frock the Vote” episode, the contestants were asked to create a character as presidential candidates and stand at podiums, answering questions in the style of a political debate. Chad Michaels, a 40-year-old white queen plays Chad “the Lady Pimp” Michaels, a funky, 70s-inspired character who was “one of the first transgender dancers on the Soul Train.” Latrice Royale plays a more somber, no-nonsense candidate. While the judges loved Michaels’ “joke character” as a “fully-realized human being,” Latrice was critiqued that “she didn’t have a character” and ended up on the bottom, at which she had to lip-sync in order to stay in the competition. The lip-sync was performed to the song “I’ve Got to Use My Imagination” by Gladys Knight. Latrice’s performance echoed the high energy dancing one might see in a black Southern Baptist church, while Dida Ritz, the other drag performer, danced like a pop “superstar… performing to an arena.” One of the on-looking queens even commented that “Latrice was taking me to church!” She stayed in the competition while Dida Ritz was asked to go home.

Reflection on Goldberg: The First Decade of the New Century

Performance art in the first decade of the twenty-first century saw an increase in popularity. Goldberg explains that post September 11, 2001 a, “multiculturalism that had marked academic and curatorial research since the 1980s, broadening the scope of the Western European canon in art history and criticism, increased exponentially” (p 226). I’m curious how the attack on the World Trade Center had an effect on curation in museums, galleries, etc? For artists, especially performance artists, whose practice often transposes an inherent political agency, would that mean an added responsibility? 
I find the conversation involving the necessity to archive performance art and how it changed the dynamic of the museum to be rather interesting. As Goldberg explains, “for the first time archivists, registrars and conservators…had to confront the complexities of displaying, collecting, preserving and explaining materials that had so profoundly shaped artistic developments in the final decades of the twentieth century, yet which, paradoxically, was ephemeral and almost invisible” (p227). I wonder if the ephemerality of performance adds to its agency? Does a performance lose its potency when the moment passes? Or can it retain it’s power through documentation? Is there something lost through this documentation process? It seems these questions elicit greater responsibility from those archivists, curators, directors, etc. 

RuPaul's Drag Race

            Strings’ article on RuPaul’s Drag Race discussed the topics of race and authenticity as it related to the perceived idea that the Heathers were, not only allowed, but encouraged to take risks by performing stereotypical acts that represented races other than their own, while the Boogers were strongly discouraged to take the same actions. The idea that gender was mutable was generally established, yet the idea that race was mutable was only believed by the Heathers. Strings’ article clearly brought forth the racial inequalities in the show and gave multiple examples that proved the blatant racism and mistreatment of the individuals that were labeled the Boogers. Multiple layers of negative connotation surrounded the terms “Heathers” and “Boogers.” The racial inequalities bled through the paper as Strings discussed specific examples in the television show. For example, RuPaul discouraged Yara from performing as Amy Whitehouse because Winehouse was not Puerto Rican, yet continuously awarded Manila’s performances as characters that were not Filipino. It surprised me that this was the case and throughout the article, I continued to question why the white/Asian characters were encouraged to perform as characters from different races, while the black/brown characters were discouraged. On page 825, Strings discussed the idea that that the black/brown individuals on the show inhabited “bodies historically deemed inherently non-fungible or inassimilable to whiteness.” In other words, the black/brown bodies were marked with race, while the white/Asian bodies could be perceived as racially ambiguous.

The idea of an inherent racial authenticity that was ultimately based on stereotypical examples of specific races, played a significant role in determining whether the characters were utilizing their ability to perform stereotypical versions of specific races. The Boogers were forced to remain true to their own perceived racial authenticity, while the Heathers were allowed to transcend theirs. Even in an example of three contestants who were all Latina. Yara and Alexis were forced to be Boogers and continuously perform Latina characters, while Carmen was “racially-unmarked” because of her light skin and lack of a Spanish accent.

Overall, the article was very convincing of the obvious racial undertones of the show and produced questions as to how this show is somewhat reflective of American society. It appears that the character’s levels of perceived “whiteness” or racial ambiguity were the determining factor in being allowed to temporarily disown one’s own race and adopted that of another. Racial superiority was apparent throughout the reading; the white/Asian race was obviously treated as superior to the black/brown. What confuses me the most about the show is that it’s hosted and presumably controlled by a black drag queen, yet the black/brown characters appear to be more harshly judged. Why would RuPaul, as a black queer, perpetuate the idea of black/brown races as inferior to white/Asian races and legitimize the idea that race is such a fixed aspect of black/brown individuals that they cannot even attempt to perform as individuals of other races, yet the white/Asian characters could? Is he perhaps simple a product of his culture or is he simply acting as a realistic judge of these performances?

Discussion of Daphne Brooks' article

            Initially, I was very intrigued by Brooks’ article because of the interesting topic she presented. In her abstract, she revealed that through the paper she examined “the politics of black women’s pop music culture in relation to the Gulf Coast catastrophe and the extreme marginalization of black women in American sociopolitical culture.” (p. 180) However, the links to Hurricane Katrina and the governmental response and lack of relief efforts appeared convoluted. The relation of Blidge’s performance to the relief efforts and as an effort to potentially bring about issues of “black female citizenship in American culture” appeared somewhat relevant because of the platform she utilized. (p. 189) The obvious connection of performing a rock song with a white man in an effort to raise money for Hurricane Katrina victims played a role in linking Blidge, as well as her music, to the catastrophe. However, the use of Beyonce’s second solo recording, B-Day, in relation to Hurricane Katrina appeared to be an artificially produced bridge between the two. The connection between Beyonce’s album and underlying issues regarding black female representation and an effort to dismantle stereotypes about black women that were perhaps more blatantly revealed through media coverage regarding Hurricane Katrina appeared to be a far stretch. Brooks’ discussion of female discontent and Beyonce’s attempt to create a new identity for black women was a much more convincing argument without her attempt to force a connection between Beyonce’s representation of this complex topic and Hurricane Katrina. Brooks used examples such as visual aspects from the album and music videos that related the music to the bayous of the south to link B-Day to Hurricane Katrina. The information that was utilized through the discussion of Beyonce’s work in connection to Hurricane Katrina appeared somewhat shallow. Overall, the idea of the marginalization of black women in American sociopolitical culture was discussed in an in-depth and convincing way. Yet, the aspects of the article that discussed its connection to Hurricane Katrina were somewhat lacking. Of course, the entire theme of the article would lack a significant part, yet Brooks’ article would have been much more compelling without the attempt to associate it with the Gulf Coast catastrophe.

Reflections on Kristine Stiles: RODFORCE

RODFORCE is a term, but also a moniker used by performance artist Sherman Fleming. I find Fleming’s use of the RODFORCE persona to be insightful, playful, and honest in its mockery. In Kristine Stiles article the author quotes Fleming explaining the use of the term: “I was trying to make a commentary on the Abstract Expressionists who I feel represented the Western ideal of brute men…” RODFORCE, a power driven by phallic energy becomes almost satirical in Fleming’s performances. I find his motivational perspective to be rather fascinating. The artist explains, “Ax Vapor is actually a thesis on the role and tradition of dance in society.” He goes on to explain that dance had changed after the industrial era, “…the waltz arrived. In that type of dancing, women lost their status; they had to be led around the floor.” Ax Vapor consisted of Fleming wearing combat boots constructed with halved bowling balls on the soles. The effect of the bowling balls was an unstable and unpredictable effect when he danced. When Stiles writes, “the necessity to endure and persist, the ability to recover from a metaphorical “fall,” the keen and artful balance of remaining upright at the same time in attempting to move along a surface that constantly changes”, I see clearly a powerful metaphor for the way we stumble through life. The satire of RODFORCE arrives in Fleming’s explanation of physical endurance as they relate to ritual and myth. The idea of physical exertions being a practice of, “male rights of passage”, and Fleming’s belief that these tasks ultimately, “will help them to gain a kind of mystic intelligence associated with female knowledge", resolve my interpretation that “RODFORCE” essentially explains the ritual action of the male as a means to invoke female intuition, insight, intellect.
What I found especially interesting was Stiles opinion on performance. She says, "Who that person is, his or her very Being-- fundamentally dictates the quality of the art." 
Stiles believes that the quality of a performance is to be judged by, "ability to capture the mind of the observer through the physical magnetism and movement of the body." Does this marginalize performers by agility and age? Why does "Who that person is" dictate quality? Is it possible that rather than "who that person is" but how that person presents who they are might dictate quality? 

Cut/Across

            
                        Not Just An "Other" Exhibition took place on March 5, 1988 at Washington Project for the Arts in Washington, D.C. The synopsis of the exhibit was formulated around the artist's groups: Black Artists/ White Artists, Latinegro Theatre Collective, and Seoul Group.
                       I was very intrigued by the personal writings, questions, concerns, photographs, etc. workshop with the focus on racism and the nature of identity. The installation was displayed by BAWA and allowed the public to participate with questions and/or their own experiences. This particular exhibit allowed people, the artists and viewers, to participate in what otherwise would be an uncomfortable conversation.
                       "I breathe air. Air is important. Air and space are important. I walk on the ground. Ground is important. I cook to make me warm. I need fire. Fire is important. The five elements are important...We need to find a better position from which to communicate. We need each other. We are basically the same," as spoken by Yuriko Yamaguchi resonates to me for several reasons. One being that race is political. Ethnicity is not bad, it is not good, it just is. Yamaguchi strips race down to being/ the act of being and I find that to be most impressive.
                       Cut/Across was intended to exemplify what it means to be American. I wonder if an exhibition like this would be more effective today? 

Fleming and RODFORCE

            I appreciate Stiles’s article on Sherman Fleming, particularly for highlighting the concentrated amount of details and layered meanings that Sherman puts into his performative pieces. I imagine it would have been near imperceptible to be aware of them embedded in the work while witnessing it in person. I think he intended it this way, as Stiles explains “his performance to be ‘populist’ in orientation…. He considers that artists… who refuse to conventionalize their work in any manner, run the risk of failing to envelop the audience and thereby gaining wider understanding.” (36) His work also seems to perceptively evolve over time and to current social concerns, likely through his constant ambitions to learn: ‘I am concerned with history, a part of history that is always left out. I am always doing research into … phenomena that have been ignored.’ (35)

            The discussion of his persona, RODFORCE, illuminates an aspect of the creation of art that I find intriguing, and have never actually thought before. This name as a response to the hypermasculine ideal represented by the Abstract Expressionists, who mostly acted like “spoiled assholes” and whose lives were out of control, begs the questions: ‘Why do you have to be on the fringe to make good work? Why do you always have to piss people off and literally hurt yourself?’ (36) I think these are good questions for us to address. Also, considering our last discussion of “Couple in the Cage,” how effective is Fleming’s embodiment of a personification that he also means to critique?

Sherman Fleming

In Kristin Stiles’ article about the work of Sherman Fleming, I particularly was interested in the ways in which Fleming attempts to communicate to his viewers in his performances. Fleming prefers his performances to be “populist,” perhaps because performance art has gradually become removed from popular notions of the visual arts (page 36). Fleming believes that artists who tend to avoid conventionalizing their art can unfortunately lose their audience and an understanding of their work (page 36). Fleming employs movement, such as dance, in order to connect with his viewer and make his work easy to identify with: “‘I think that dance, like in Ax Vapor, really hits people somewhere around here,’ (he points to the lower chakras: the region of the hear, guts and sexual organs) (page 36).”  Stiles notes the importance of performance and its connection to the viewer, “This ability to capture the mind of the observer through the physical magnetism and movement of the body is of cardinal significance in performance and one of the central means by which the quality of the work may be judged (page 37). I admire that Fleming attempts to make his performances understandable to his audience, and even considers how to spread this connection without viewers feeling threatened by his work (page 36). But how much should a performance artist concern him or herself with making their work understandable? Not every viewer will be able to connect. Should the notion of connecting with the viewer always be considered by the artist when first developing a new performance work?

"Couple in a Cage"

               Diana Taylor's piece on A Savage Performance: Guillermo 'omez-Pena and Coco Fusco's "Couple in a Cage" examines Pena and Fusco's recreation of colonialism in contemporary time. "Couple in a Cage" was performed in the early 1990's and traveled the world exhibiting Pena and Fusco while incorporating the very real theme of "other". Taylor discusses that for many centuries, "The 'primitive' body as object reaffirms the cultural supremacy and authority of viewing the subject-the one who sees, interprets, and records from the divine Columbus to the ethnographer... The objectified, 'primitive' body exists,  isolated and removed" (p. 163).  Taylor also examines that the 'encounters' with the 'other' and breaks it down by stating that the only way society understands 'discovery' is through the eyes of the 'explorer'. This automatically is a separation between us and them.
               I like Pena and Fusco's performance because it scrutinizes the barbaric American history that has been taught for the last couple of centuries. From their avoidance of eye contact, the use of collars and leashes to be worn for when the artists needed to use the bathroom, as well as using an unintelligible, their performance eroticized and sexualized a fable. Through their exploitation of 'other' it seemed to open a dialogue and (hopefully) helped bring to question how history has been written i.e. the discoverers vs. discover-ees. 

Reflections on Diana Taylor: A Savage Performance

In Diana Taylor’s essay “A Savage Performance” the author discusses the role of the museum in an ethnographic context as it relates to Guillermo Gómez-Peña and Coco Fusco’s “Couple in a Cage” performance. Taylor states, “Museums enact the knower/known relationship, preserve (a particular) history, (certain) traditions, and (dominant) values” (p 164). I found Taylor’s phraseology with the use of parentheses in this passage effective in communicating the hegemonic devices at work within the curation of museums especially those of natural history or ethnography. The authority of the museum to edit is exemplary of their power and dominance of other societies or cultures, as Taylor explains, “the monumentality of most museums emphasizes the discrepancy in power between the society which can contain all others, and those represented only by remains, the shards and fragments salvaged in miniature displays” (p164).  The museum itself, a symbol of that hegemonic order, functions as the authoritative superior which has the power to “contain", display or exhibit the “other” cultures. 

The artists created a documentary of the performance. I find the discussion of whether the video does the same thing as the very museums and discoverers that the artists are critiquing to be quite interesting. Does this video perpetuate the view of “us and them”? Does “reversing the ethnographic lens” provide an insight to the audience subject? (p169). Taylor explains, “the subject of analysis in the Cage performance is not the “couple” inside but the audience outside” (p 172). If that is the case, than the video provides the audience to see themselves as subject, albeit unknowing performers. The author asked artist Gómez-Peña, “what his ideal spectator would have done”; his response, “open the cage and let us out” (p 169). In the discussion of intervention I cannot help but consider the standardized restrictions of the museum in context of performance and theatricality and their symbolic relationship to colonialism; specifically, "don’t touch the art" and "don’t interrupt the show”.

Taylor Reflection

            Diana Taylor’s discussion in the section on “Theatricality” adds some dimension to the consideration of Gómez-Peña’s “Welcome to the Third World.” By supplanting the anonymous faces of the “indigenous” from various “exotic” lands with the names of famous Western Europeans who were known for exploitation of non-western culture, Gómez-Peña quite effectively satirizes the colonialist incentive to use “indigenous bodies [to] perform as a ‘truth factor; they ‘prove’ the material facticity of an ‘other’ and authenticate the discoverer/missionary/anthropologist’s adventure….” Taylor also discusses the “unidirectional gaze” involving the “native body” as an object to be viewed (“discovered”) by the “civilized observer.” I think there is somewhat of a parallel between this idea and the last words by Gómez-Peña in this piece: “I talk, therefore I am.” Taylor emphasizes the presentation of the “native bodies” as “not speaking.” “Voiceless, it lets us speak for it…. ‘We,’ those viewers who look through the eyes of the explorer, are (like the explorer) positioned safely outside the frame, free to define, theorize, and debate their (never ‘our’) societies.” (162)

"Two Undiscovered Amerindians Visit the West"

Diana Taylor’s article discusses the performance, Two Undiscovered Amerindians Visit, by Cuco Fusco and Guillermo Gómez-Peña. In this traveling performance, the two artists confined themselves in a cage where viewers could observe and explore them. The artists chose specific places for their performances, countries that have histories of abuse towards natives (page 163). This performance “repeated the colonialist gesture of producing the ‘savage’ body, and it historicized the practice by highlighting its citational character (page 164.” What I found interesting in Taylor’s discussion of this performance was her exploration of the histories of confining the “other.” For example, the way in which museums present a discrepancy in power and how they come to represent “the theatricality of colonialism (page 167).”  When Taylor uses the word “theatricality” does she mean colonialism is a spectacle in this context? Taylor also claims that “the cage confronted the viewer with the unnatural and violent history of representation and exhibition of non-Western human beings (page 167).” The cage also brings into discussion the history of caging rebellious people in Latin America and pre-Hispanic times. The cage in this performance opens the artists up to being labeled and classified, while they remain silent, removing any individuality, similar to the effects of colonialism and even imprisonment (page 167). In what ways can we see the artists owning any sense of agency in this performance?