so if i was a devoted and loyal promoter who wanted to pump the festival (the scream) at all costs and pretend the bad things never happened, then i wouldn’t be writing this. but the mouthy critic in me has been clawing at the screen door and trying to get past the old women knitting with back wool so it has to happen:
anyone who was at the keynote panel for the Scream will unanimously agree that it flopped to rank among the “less interesting” events of the festival (and this is using the definition according to Sianne Ngai, who coloured in her new “research” at a lecture at York in the Spring, where she said that interesting is an ambivalent criticism that falls out of the mouths of academics who don’t know what to say about something, generally because it’s not that good, they don’t know what to make of it, they don’t want to show too much enthusiasm, or something is sort of good but not that interesting, or the concept of an art piece is interesting but if fails to evoke any sort of emotion … other possibilities following this train of thought). what i’m getting at is that i wouldn’t even put the panel in this category — that would be too generous — therefore it’s down a grade.
this has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of the night, which i think, by all rights, was an important undertaking given the academic (and literary) climate of the last few years. and you think that a panel that showcased head-honchos Kenny Goldsmith, NourbeSe Philip and Michael Miranda moderated by York’s Marcus Boon, would generate some kind of discussion that would be at least somewhat “interesting” in the Ngai sense of the word.
the fact is that all the panelists managed to avoid discussing anything that was even remotely theoretical or political. for the most part they avoided answering Boon’s questions, or gave half-assessed three word answers. a bunch of academics up on stage talking about work they’re literally piecing together, and not one of them gave the audience a good reason as to why they would undertake appropriation as a method of art production. perhaps “entertainment” is a dear enough reason, but it seemed that the only person who actually took the time to illustrate how and why the entertainment factor is important to her work (and for her readers) was fan fiction author Alexis Muirhead. and instead of answering the question himself, Goldsmith tried to create tension by insulting Muirhead by disdainfully asking if she is a “hobbyist.”
i’m going to do my best not to make this the attack Goldsmith entry, mainly because his Ubu Web is one of the greatest things that has happened to art, literature and the internet. also, he did talk a little bit about that and i almost thought the event would be worthwhile. … but being that it was a discussion panel, it would have been nice to hear a little reason or two concerning the significance of his famous (in very elite circles) book Day, or why we should listen to his closing act/reading which would take the form of a transcribed interview between a police man and a senator. there are lots of scripts out there that someone can find and read. he’s not the first, nor the last, person to think about reading the phone book in front of an audience, and the whole “found art” shtick needs some reinforcement, because it’s in danger of becoming a gimmick.
to be fair to Michael Miranda, he actually was trying to discuss some sociopolitical things, but his movement from thought to thought circumvented the question being asked and i think people, including the panelists, were slightly thrown-off. and i don’t remember being upset about anything Philip said, except i remember wishing that she would speak a little more about her project. i think both she and Miranda did their best to explain the projects given the climate of the panel …
when the “readings” began, there was the lovely presentation by ’90s zinester collagist Sonja Ahlers of slides of things she likes and the boards that she pastes them too. ‘nough said. and she also didn’t give us any reason about why we should care about her cutouts … except something about everyone being an artist or something and world being full of art everywhere. which i suppose is a perfectly fine answer, just not what i was looking for.
****
now see, sometime last year i spent months putting together this collage which is posted somewhere on other cl/utter. the piece appropriates sentences, stanzas and phrases, from books of theory, poetry, and fiction. i wasn’t just randomly reading texts finding things i liked. i searched high and low, dug up books i hadn’t glanced at in years to pull out the right words - the asphalt of our crucifix/intersection - the foundation of our city to which my efforts made me martyr, to which we are all martyrs, our institutions, our academies, our heads…. layered on top are discussions and thought processes of the individuals who walk, ride, live on the streets. songs they listen to, on ipods, on the radio, within pubs … things people say to eachother, things they think on the streetcar. each blurb representing a person’s position on this foundation. perhaps my obsession with semiotics and the ways in which language makes up our understanding of some kind of phallo-centric thing that some (white) man decided to call the symbolic order has deeply biased my interpretation of the panel discussion that took place during the Scream. but it’s there, the symbolic, and i live in it, and we all do, and our identities are constructed by the signs we read, the sounds we hear. our thoughts are nothing more than a product of everything we’ve taken in before the moment of the present. ironically, the present is the only thing that actually exists (but that’s another topic).
you know, why appropriate? why take found art, steal lines, pictures reproduced in other media? because it says something dreadfully complex about our humanity and our current social and political circumstances, because it tells a story about knowledge and pedagogy and identity and class structures and politics.
but what the fuck do i know….. apparently reading a transcription of an interview between a police officer and a senator is funny enough left alone …
******************
on another note:
the Scream’s Lex Revival night was super awesome, and it was only topped off by the following night which showcased four re-inventions (film, theatre, sound poetry, and music) of Kevin Connolly’s “Plenty” by different artists. the Connolly night was a blast. it was better than a blast. it was super fun, real live entertaining, and one of those evenings that just make you feel all warm inside. … other than what it says about individuality and an the recycling of language, art, ideas, etc. … it was one of those nights where the entertainment factor alone was enough to make it more than worth while.
i think that might be it about the festival. moving on to other things.

