karaj: this quote from chris kraus is in elizabeth gumport’s great n+1 story about everything i care about: ti-grace atkinson, deleuze, sexy theory, the end of privacy, etc.  anyway, i’ve been thinking about this statement because i’ve heard kraus make similar comments before—about how the therapeutic “I” is no good for art, or for politics, but the impersonal “I” is. and i never really agree with her. i’m a little bit deleuzean about this—and i was, thanks to adrienne rich, even before i read deleuze—and think that any time a woman honestly tells a personal story it’s already political and contains the larger world within it. (that doesn’t mean any time a woman tells a personal story it’s art, but i care less about that question.)  maybe that’s not exactly what kraus is saying when she talks about the “therapeutic.” she also uses the words “narrative” and “repentant.” and here i am like adam phillips and think that narrative can be stultifying (hence i like the fragmentary nature of tumblr). and as far as repentant—obviously i don’t think women need to be telling stories so as to apologize for their lives (although sometimes we all do things we should be apologizing for).  anyway, regardless, kraus seems really committed to the idea of an intellectual “I,” which seems weirdly cartesian and self-hatery and a way of distancing herself from 60s and 70s feminists, who actually were doing theory when they did CR, even when they weren’t “doing theory.” i’m not sure i think the distinction kraus is trying to make really exists or even should. i do get that she is calling for an aestheticization of something, which i think is what most of us are always doing, anyway. and i get that she is asking for a degree of reflection. but actually, i think she is just being snobby.  but really what this makes me think about is how many people on tumblr—sometimes me included—will post random personal stories or even just thoughts or feelings, and how much i always like this, and that in another post they will explicitly theorize about something, and that it is this play between the personal and the theoretical that is interesting. but you know what? i bet i’d still like it even if they didn’t theorize.  anyway, i will agree with kraus’s comment that “the willingness of someone to use her life as primary material is still deeply disturbing” and that the public/private dichotomy mostly protects The Heteropatriarchy, which is why “to hell with it.” 

Feb 5 -

karaj:

this quote from chris kraus is in elizabeth gumport’s great n+1 story about everything i care about: ti-grace atkinson, deleuze, sexy theory, the end of privacy, etc. 

anyway, i’ve been thinking about this statement because i’ve heard kraus make similar comments before—about how the therapeutic “I” is no good for art, or for politics, but the impersonal “I” is. and i never really agree with her. i’m a little bit deleuzean about this—and i was, thanks to adrienne rich, even before i read deleuze—and think that any time a woman honestly tells a personal story it’s already political and contains the larger world within it. (that doesn’t mean any time a woman tells a personal story it’s art, but i care less about that question.) 

maybe that’s not exactly what kraus is saying when she talks about the “therapeutic.” she also uses the words “narrative” and “repentant.” and here i am like adam phillips and think that narrative can be stultifying (hence i like the fragmentary nature of tumblr). and as far as repentant—obviously i don’t think women need to be telling stories so as to apologize for their lives (although sometimes we all do things we should be apologizing for). 

anyway, regardless, kraus seems really committed to the idea of an intellectual “I,” which seems weirdly cartesian and self-hatery and a way of distancing herself from 60s and 70s feminists, who actually were doing theory when they did CR, even when they weren’t “doing theory.” i’m not sure i think the distinction kraus is trying to make really exists or even should. i do get that she is calling for an aestheticization of something, which i think is what most of us are always doing, anyway. and i get that she is asking for a degree of reflection. but actually, i think she is just being snobby. 

but really what this makes me think about is how many people on tumblr—sometimes me included—will post random personal stories or even just thoughts or feelings, and how much i always like this, and that in another post they will explicitly theorize about something, and that it is this play between the personal and the theoretical that is interesting. but you know what? i bet i’d still like it even if they didn’t theorize. 

anyway, i will agree with kraus’s comment that “the willingness of someone to use her life as primary material is still deeply disturbing” and that the public/private dichotomy mostly protects The Heteropatriarchy, which is why “to hell with it.”