yes, Kaia, great vision: but the choice / visibility is not entirely upon our choice, of course.. The majority has more chance, a minority means exactly a limited choice to be visible. The majorities (un)consciously practice the politics of visibility.. it is really strictly related to recognition of others / just to mark their own identity / - which in turn is based on a false consciousness (of homogenity) - See perhaps Crete / Greece, Hungary, Czech Republic etc.. for a good example
attile:"Identity is something which needs visibility", hmmm but what sort to visibility? on whose conditions? how do you 'become' visible? mitras example of iran is such a good example of how problematic the issue is...
aren't those stamps/labels that people place on us, are the thing that make us make a stand and shape who we are and inspire us to connect with others who refuse to be labelled or categorised? and in turn we enter into a world where we want to be more visible and engage with others
Yea, I am to make visibility more complicate.. the question is "what sort of visibility? " -- I mean, it looks somehow clear, that visibility is often meant metaphorically, or technically: as well, at a basic level it refers to "be present for somebody else" . how would you assess that?
exactly, patacadf - recognition and presence of others is the clue - visibility is simply what we want to see, what in our opinion is/can be a social norm, has a voice in public discourse. I think that poor people are here a good example (not only beggars, but also).
Finding a route to navigate beyond stamps and labels is the challenge and one that is impossible for some unfortunately Jo... but yes I am a believer in yin and yang- opposites being catalysts for action... sometimes for the greater good and other times for the bad... certainly for me- I thrive on being label-less! I refuse to be called an Iranian woman artist- as the artworld would wish to- I cut myself out of certain opportunities but I prefer not be put into a box!
patacadf, i agree with you, definitely we don't have too much choice, if we're not an ordinary majority. Cause majority has the strength to force a minority. and obviously it's not possible even to balance that, because of fact there are too many different minorities,and between those minorities are too many inconsistencies and disagreements. And the reason of being invisible, or in a better case, only transparent is a human fear.
I beg your pardon, let me quote: "I refuse to be called an Iranian woman artist- as the artworld would wish to-" ... -'look at me' - would be a perfect end of that sentence? I would say. Is it worse, then the passport stamp? Well, there are a lot of spaces we are viewed. The artworld is also a "minority" .. yet, for one or another person is really important as for how she is "called" /seen in there.. in this way "political" has a slightly different sense then usually..
Well, for example, gave the user name like this.. that makes not much sense. but I liked it: sort of neutrality, distance /from my real position/. My real name refers to a sort of position, that - for purely methodological reason, I did not want to reveal. My name is Attila: but in a way it is not so important in here. Anyway, as you wish to call / see me. well, perhaps it is not a choice, is it?
... This is not really about me... I was using myself as an example of a wider concept- that sometimes we want certain labels for certain gains- Passport labels refer to how we are given permission to exist- Artworld labels can also have the same impact on a professional career. I was not distinguishing one as better or worse than the other- although I think passport labels have a bigger impact holistically on a persons life than professional labels.... I dont understand what you mean about "look at me".... Attila is a lovely name by the way :)
kaia, maybe i got you wrong..., but for me there is a mix-up with min-/majorities here. there are majorities who try to impose the general idea of being righteous or correct on others (small groups, individuals, minorities). we have also small groups of high influentials who try to dictate/instrumentalize other groups (minorities and/or majorities). it is like in a fullblown orchestra ... the strings are the majority but if they do not allow the winds to blow and having -rarely enough- percussions to comment... it'll sound incomplete or end in cacophony. respect, composedness, with a good deal of ecstatic irritation, this i my definition of a social body of visibility... and audibility
political: well, actually it would lead far a bit. but political here in the sense that concerns power: but exactly it is a capacity of men to act for or against each other, themselves... Therefore "political" could be used in a very broad sense /state, monopoly of means and resources are just part of it, and perhaps not even the most authentic form of the political, but of course is a matter of another debate.. / What is interesting here, I guess: the power to define ourselves /the other is strictly related to "let it /him /her be present for us" and "let us be present to them"- and here we find the connection to visibility /if the former notion was correct..
it is not a choice for you or for me? gosh. we could go like this on and on... but you're right in pointing towards that we constantly play around our positions we occupy (willingly or not) in the social net. that's why i prefer to talk about identifications and processes of identifying with/against, rather than about identities, which tend to be seen/presented as 'stable' postions. you're jew so you have to look like this, do this and that, etc... you're an artist, you should .... but we all know that we're all those things at once, and problems arise when we're forced to prioritise 'who we are'. sort of 'one at the time'. but we never are this OR that. that's why i wanted to point that visibility and representations are tricky grounds...
Sorry, Mitra, it was probably a misunderstanding .. Well, I just referred to the fact: that you have a sort of view that is not really comfortable for you: you are called /viewed as you mentioned, let me not quote this time. However, it is not entirely your choice, and it is hard , or impossible to get a "proper" view - of oneself: As I (Cf.: we) want to be present. Your identity is created partly by yourself. But the identity is somehow - again a- a not very clear notion for me.. Sorry, hah, again, I am sorry..
greg_mir > you got me correct. Social body of visibility... yes, without all that equal /non equal mess, without differences and antagonisms we all could be visible... and in the same moment we would start being... invisible. We want to be equal, and at the same want to be visible. That's the point to discuss.
RESPONDING to Robertkulpa's comment re. women, I was reminded of the following, by Pastor Niemoeller (1892 - 1984): First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they name for the communists and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Ah Attila! no apologies needed :) thanks for the clarification! wish we were all actually sitting round a table with cups of coffee/ tea/ favorite drinks or what ever - its hard to tell the tone in these things... still this is a great way of hearing all the different viewpoints- all passionate and inspiring :)
... if you wish, yes, Robert, let me agree: tricky grounds.. Heh, by the way, mostly for "registered aliens" . Of course, the majority may feeeeel very comfortable in his / her 'homogenetically' given place in the universe..
to anon: yes, i didn't mean to say we should not. but what i wanted to say is that we are unable to do this effectively, for various reasons. seeking 'justice' for 'all' are so high flying words that they may so easily become so meaningless, not giving any concrete tools for political action. on the other hand, those 'all people'/'humanity'/etc far too often tend to actually refer to those already quite well privileged. (read: white, heterosexual, middle classed, waged, male, 'western'...)
Well, let me thank you for the poem! It tempts to coin as poem on the salami-identity /remembering the terminology of the Stalinist era../ as another question: If you think of your position in a social body of visibility: - I wonder how far it is possible to define clearly your position as minority or majority situation? What are the factors your answer depend on? Perhaps there would be indeed need some considerable table and fine tea to discuss.. that is a nice idea, Mitra!
Tolerance, which we sometimes use in place of respect and mercy, generosity and forbearance, is the most essential element of moral systems. It also is a very important source of spiritual discipline, and a celestial virtue of perfected men and women. " This is a quote from Fethullah Gulen who is at the center of Intercultural Dialogue. If you would like to read more about what he thinks about tolerance and intercultural dialogue, please visit the following links: Fethullah Gulen Fethullah Gulen Movement