from FLESHTONEZ (a group show of “erotica”) showing now in melbourne at paradise hills until the 22nd. this piece is SOLD.
6-iBRrznuckOQ~~60_12.JPG)
OS TÚMULOS MAIS REPRESENTATIVOS
?STROM?NT?
Rainer Werner Fassbinder interviewed by Peter W. Jansen
& here’s the mandatory gif quote.
(via cruiseorbecruised)
This is for my friends pursuing piece of shit instagram accounts flauting ownership, looks, and selfies. I know I’ll have to go there eventually, so here’s a primer: my breakfast of coffee and fried octopus.
Maybe it’s too soon to return to Transmetropolitan? I thought about The Smiler today when I was listening to Rachel Maddow and suddenly she interrupted herself saying “this is not yesterday’s program; these are two different spying scandals”. First the Obama admin. does it. Now he wants to have a conversation.
![I do like the picture from the Gezi Park protests with the girl holding a tote bag, sprayed by police. This one is rather suspicious, like it was planned to mix a Delacroix with those (very staged) Gursky photos of raves. And then there’s the flag.
By the way, why is Behind the Candelabra so disgusting? Soderbergh apparently took years to make the film, but it’s hard to understand what it is about. Liberace’s extravagance? The price of fame (i.e. dirt everywhere)? A nip at the Kenneth Anger goldmine of lewd rumours? To me it looks like redeeming camp through realism, filling the fantasy with emotional “depth” and blownup drama. Camp cannot be redeemed, so the operation is more like a repackaging for mass audiences. So, in true Zizekian manner, it’s no longer an “in spite of”, but a “precisely because of”: Liberace in all his grace, taking it in the ass. When Damon’s character later yelps that they were “married”, there comes the sweet hand of legitimacy. But on the other hand, if this is a portrayal of homosexuality as a crime against nature (Liberace remakes Scott as his son), isn’t marriage the civilizing act that can preempt [incestual] abuse, impose true equality, etc?](http://25.media.tumblr.com/e47ec2659e4040694eb5575245c4d44c/tumblr_mnzl3xGXls1qzzemqo1_400.png)
I do like the picture from the Gezi Park protests with the girl holding a tote bag, sprayed by police. This one is rather suspicious, like it was planned to mix a Delacroix with those (very staged) Gursky photos of raves. And then there’s the flag.
By the way, why is Behind the Candelabra so disgusting? Soderbergh apparently took years to make the film, but it’s hard to understand what it is about. Liberace’s extravagance? The price of fame (i.e. dirt everywhere)? A nip at the Kenneth Anger goldmine of lewd rumours? To me it looks like redeeming camp through realism, filling the fantasy with emotional “depth” and blownup drama. Camp cannot be redeemed, so the operation is more like a repackaging for mass audiences. So, in true Zizekian manner, it’s no longer an “in spite of”, but a “precisely because of”: Liberace in all his grace, taking it in the ass. When Damon’s character later yelps that they were “married”, there comes the sweet hand of legitimacy. But on the other hand, if this is a portrayal of homosexuality as a crime against nature (Liberace remakes Scott as his son), isn’t marriage the civilizing act that can preempt [incestual] abuse, impose true equality, etc?
Found this at the local book fair last weekend. I had a short look, but honestly, if your theory is based on reversing Said’s orientalism, aren’t you already outing yourself as a resentful bastard? How does one read such a book? Do you do it while you cry because of what “they” did?
