Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Staring back
The article by Rosemarie Thomson is an account of an artist named Mary Duffy. What Duffy does is incredibly brave but I don't think the article does a good job of diving into what the performance means. She goes into full detail describing what is seen on stage, but what is the whole point of the performance? By presenting her "disabled" body nude in front of a live audience it isn't to invoke staring, but instead she allows it. She does the exact opposite of hiding her disability, and her bravery gives the audience the ability to accept her disability as fact. It strips the disability of it's power by allowing the audience to see past it. We stop focusing on what isn't there and start paying attention to what is, a beautiful human being. This is the true beauty of Mary Duffy's performance as described by the writer of the article. Not that she challenges the "stare-and-tell ritual" but instead openly invites people to look at her naked form, and show that a disability has no power over her.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The point that RGT was trying to make, and she does in more detail in her book Staring, is that this kind of staring (in Mary Duffy's case) is welcomed. It is staring that Marry Duffy is encouraging-it is on her terms-she has created it. She controls the situation, and has control of her body and can display her body in the manner she feels necessary to convey her message. That was the point of the performance-to give Mary Duffy the option to control the "staring" and turn it into something positive, and actually to invite it. If you're interested in learning more about this-go on jstor under databases on the ublibraries website and look up Staring: How We Look by Rosemarie Garland Thomson. Look up a few reviews to get a sense of the main idea, that should help a bit. I have the book as well if you're interested.
ReplyDelete