Hello, I am forwarding a set of messages that bounced off Empyre because it
was the end of the month. I know some of the the people on this list
followed and participated in the thread, and I think may want to know about
the brief exchange that happened after the month ended.

This is not being sent for further discussion as I am exhausted from the
last few days of writing, but more as a way to reach those who were part of
the debate.

This is forward starts with jacquie's response, followed by my response, and
ends with her final response to my commentaries, which left me with
interesting questions.

I left her e-mail out for courtesy.

If you want to read the thread go here:
https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/2005-April/date.html


Best,

Eduardo Navas

———–

Jacquie Clark wrote on April 30, 2005:
Hola,

A final word on the discussion between Eduardo and Raul before it
disappears. Writing as someone who felt very moved by the conversation
as it ranged between people and loved seeing Spanish spoken and written
on the list. Gracias. While on holiday in Mexico City last year I
watched for a long time while an Aztec soldier gave Aztec language
lessons near the Zocalo - alongside the Pablo Neruda conference which
was all a street affair. The list discussion made me wonder if the
label of "subtle essentialism" is particularised by proximity to
indigenity. Last year Australian art historian Ian McLean in Eyeline:
Contemporary Visual Arts magazine discussed Aboriginal artist Judy
Watson's work making the comment that the spiritual concerns of
indigenous art mark its contemporariness. As an art theorist I am
writing a lecture on the origins of circular imagery which also emerges
from that arena across cultures and of course has been marginalised
because of its essentialist associations ie cosmology, astronomy,
astrology, paganism, etc. Still a very significant origin which
provides an incredible level of intellectual sustenance for one's
efforts. I guess the counter to 'essentialism' is plurality and the
problematic but is that also often aligned with a privileged, centered
vista?

Jacquie Clarke
Lecturer
Visual Theory
Auckland University of Technology
New Zealand

On 01/05/2005, at 8:11 AM, Kate Southworth wrote:


—— Forwarded Message
From: Eduardo Navas <eduardo@navasse.net>
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 02:15:01 -0700
To: <arapito@pl.net>, Christina McPhee <christina112@earthlink.net>
Subject: FW: [-empyre-] Farewell to Patrick, Raul and Eduardo for "Border
Crossings"


I am forwarding this as I shall not be silenced.

E.

—— Forwarded Message
From: Eduardo Navas <eduardo@navasse.net>
Date: Sun, 01 May 2005 01:00:07 -0700
To: Empyre <empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>, soft_skinned_space
<empyre@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au>, Christina McPhee
<christina112@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [-empyre-] Farewell to Patrick, Raul and Eduardo for "Border
Crossings"

Hello,

I must reply to this message. My answer below

On 4/30/05 9:18 PM, "Jacquie Clarke" <arapito@pl.net> wrote:


>The list discussion made me wonder if the
> label of "subtle essentialism" is particularised by proximity to
> indigenity. Last year Australian art historian Ian McLean in Eyeline:
> Contemporary Visual Arts magazine discussed Aboriginal artist Judy
> Watson's work making the comment that the spiritual concerns of
> indigenous art mark its contemporariness.

When I mentioned a subtle essentialism, I was not referring to the spiritual
beliefs of indigenous people. If you followed the whole thread, you will
notice how Raul kept extending his personal oral history to everyone on the
list–that is what I was referring to and tried to make obvious at the end
of my message, by explaining how he cannot make abstract statements as he
had been doing. You should read all of his statements not only the recent
debate.


I implicated myself to show Raul that it is not right to impose his oral
history on members of the list–not to mention InteractivA 05. It is
problematic when people use the terms "us" "our" "we" without properly
explaining who is actually being included. This is the essentialism I was
critiquing, not Raul's spirituality. This is the same problem of
autobiography I wrote about before. Your suggestion that the subtle
essentialism I referred to maybe particular by proximity to "indigenity"
exposes that you read in my statements what you wanted to read, and not what
I said…

Perhaps/because/maybe/could it be/would it be that by implicating myself, I
opened up a space where people can speculate on my proximity to indigenity
and thereby study the "subject" that may be conflicted… Especially since
the subject admitted to such conflict… Here the anthropologist can talk
about the issues at hand and address a problematic about essentialism and
pluralism more comfortably. Hmmm…


You also said:
>While on holiday in Mexico City last year I
> watched for a long time while an Aztec soldier gave Aztec language
> lessons near the Zocalo - alongside the Pablo Neruda conference which
> was all a street affair.

This is always great to see. Although it takes more than a few hours to
understand how such activities are actually negotiated by the locals. The
authentic "Aztec soldier" giving lessons during a street affair. Why could
it not be just "a regular person" who happened to be a native do you think?
Why did you not say "a person fluent in Aztec language"? Because those in
power mythologize Aztec culture. It would be a different matter if half the
people on the streets of Mexico were speaking in native languages, having
conversations about the economy or the daily events. But this was not what
you experienced. You experienced something in a safe environment, where it
was properly contextualized as authentic proof of Mexico's rich history,
during a street affair. This does not mean that you could not see through
the myth; however, your statement does not make this obvious. I shall not
assume if you did or didn't.


>As an art theorist I am
> writing a lecture on the origins of circular imagery which also emerges
> from that arena across cultures and of course has been marginalised
> because of its essentialist associations ie cosmology, astronomy,
> astrology, paganism, etc. Still a very significant origin which
> provides an incredible level of intellectual sustenance for one's
> efforts. I guess the counter to 'essentialism' is plurality and the
> problematic but is that also often aligned with a privileged, centered
> vista?

You prove my point here. You read what you wanted to read. Again, it is
Raul's position that is problematic, not his use of cosmology or astrology,
or how these particular practices rely on essentialist beliefs.


I shall rephrase my previous personalized statement in a more abstract
language, maybe then you will know what I hoped to attain by sharing my
personal limitations–a very complex history which includes transnational
issues and diaspora amongst other cultural interstices. But I am not about
to expose them here as I can see what happened before. Here it comes:

It is important that people understand their respective backgrounds in
relation to the limitations imposed by the language and culture in which
they function; It is also crucial to problematize such limitations and
extend them as much as possible through constant search of knowledge into
ones' own history; but one must also be careful not to exoticize oneself in
the process. One can acknowldege and cherish one's history, which for me
includes a connection through bloodlines but one must also be careful not to
romanticize such connections as possible trancendental vehicles, and most
importantly, one must not universalize such narratives and impose them on
others; for how is one different from a colonizer then? By being aware of
differences and their historization one can really understand how to
constantly expand the limitations imposed by social constructs. This is a
problematic whether one is in the center or in the periphery. This is the
real issue.

Peace out.


Jacquie replied:
Hello,

> If you followed the whole thread, you will
> notice how Raul kept extending his personal oral history to everyone
> on the
> list–that is what I was referring to and tried to make obvious at the
> end
> of my message, by explaining how he cannot make abstract statements
> as he
> had been doing. You should read all of his statements not only the
> recent
> debate.

Thanks for your reply. Perhaps I should have remained silent instead as
I, as you have pointed out, didn't follow the whole thread. I was also
wanting to express how I had felt very moved by what I had read of the
discussion and aware of the resounding silence.



> This is always great to see. Although it takes more than a few hours
> to
> understand how such activities are actually negotiated by the locals.
> The
> authentic "Aztec soldier" giving lessons during a street affair. Why
> could
> it not be just "a regular person" who happened to be a native do you
> think?
> Why did you not say "a person fluent in Aztec language"? Because
> those in
> power mythologize Aztec culture. It would be a different matter if
> half the
> people on the streets of Mexico were speaking in native languages,
> having
> conversations about the economy or the daily events. But this was not
> what
> you experienced. You experienced something in a safe environment,
> where it
> was properly contextualized as authentic proof of Mexico's rich
> history,
> during a street affair. This does not mean that you could not see
> through
> the myth; however, your statement does not make this obvious. I shall
> not
> assume if you did or didn't.

I called the person who I watched on the street an Aztec soldier
because that is what he called himself and was dressed accordingly. It
was part of the performance which was also very intentionally
entertaining and humorous. To particularise my view I watched that
performance as a New Zealander aware that there is institutional
support for Maori language within our education system - though we
still have a long way to go before it is mandatory in our primary
system. So I found the performance intriguing and gutsy and also very
sad. You are right I wasn't responding to the 'subjectivity' of Raul's
discussion - I was responding to all the lost histories that I thought
about clambering up Tolteca pyramids. As you also said I read what I
wanted to read. Perhaps I was also just wanting to name the positions
as I have often wondered if something is called 'essentialist' then
what is the mysterious position that is naming it as such?
> It is important that people understand their respective backgrounds in
> relation to the limitations imposed by the language and culture in
> which
> they function; It is also crucial to problematize such limitations and
> extend them as much as possible through constant search of knowledge
> into
> ones' own history; but one must also be careful not to exoticize
> oneself in
> the process. One can acknowldege and cherish one's history, which for
> me
> includes a connection through bloodlines but one must also be careful
> not to
> romanticize such connections as possible trancendental vehicles, and
> most
> importantly, one must not universalize such narratives and impose them
> on
> others; for how is one different from a colonizer then? By being
> aware of
> differences and their historization one can really understand how to
> constantly expand the limitations imposed by social constructs. This
> is a
> problematic whether one is in the center or in the periphery. This is
> the
> real issue.

This is very complex - I wonder what is the difference between the
transcendent and the expansive? Maybe that's a matter of subjectivity
and preference. Perhaps we need both. Maybe I'm questioning the 'subtle
privilege' of the unnamed position. Not yours particularly but all of
ours from time to time.


Best wishes,
Jacquie