The Theatre Times: In this article, Elke Huybrechts regards what happened on theater stages in 2017 through a queer theoretical lens, motivated by her fondness for queering as a strategy, but also by the realization that there’s an antagonism as well as a certain elusiveness at the heart of the artistic practices she associates with it.
4 comments:
As much as I would like to believe that I completely understand what the article is trying to convey to the readers, I cant. The topic of the article and the way it is written is in a way, slightly confusing.
The methodology of queer performance, as much curiousness as it entails as a concept, fails to make an impact of how it is useful when analyzing performances. Not to say that it is not useful at all, it is more like it can be used more efficiently.
The users of this methodology, as is projected through the article, also fail to convey how this method specifically is the best way to analyze performances, which in a way defeats the purpose of the article for me.
I understand what the methodology is saying but as it is tied to the rest of the article, it fails to come of as an extremely important analytical procedure; rather it comes of as one of the wyas that someone might use if they want to try something new.
I hate to jump in and complain about this subject, but I have been waiting patiently for representation of trans folks in theatre, and lately I have been feeling like we jumped right over it. This article gave many examples of shows that work at deconstructing gender, breaking down gender roles, eliminating barriers between bodies. I am all for that, and I would vote for a nonbinary future, but I would also like to see someone like me on the stage. There are many, many binary trans people, and there are many, many queer people who are not radical. I am excited to see rad queer works on the rise, but we are currently at war with the government, trying to protect the lives of trans people. I want to see a movement in theatre that normalizes queerness and gender diversity, rather than radicalizing it. Among progressives, being trans may not be radical, but it certainly is among conservatives. Putting out a very visible volume of works that are body-focused and sexualized is only going to set us back in the battle we are fighting right now.
There is a lot to unpack in this article. I am still pretty uncertain where I stand on the the topic of queering performances, particularly because everyone seems to have a different definition of what means to queer and performance and because of a sentiment I have similar to Chase’s – that the LGBT+ community needs more practical representation (but that is a whole other can of worms that I will leave on the shelf for this thread, and that I think Chase articulates very well). I find it interesting the conclusion the author comes to about queering to be hostile. The author uses the word “antagonistic” and to me that feels like a pretty negative word, and does not paint the concept of queering in a positive light. Using “antagonistic” to describe the nature of queering also makes me think that the community queering a production is done out of anger at the lack of queer content, which I am sure is the case in some instances, I just think that by using this word as a descriptor, the author is deterring those who know little about queer culture and queered performance away from being educated and experiencing it. Also a note on the word queer and how the author describes the origin of the word. The word queer was originally used to describe things as strange or different, but it was ultimately used as a slur against the LGBT+ community, it was not “appropriated” or begin as a word of “pride”. It was and still is used in a hateful manner, and thus some people in the community have chosen to reclaim it as descriptor for themselves and their community. I also understand that this is a translated article and thus some of the meaning that the author originally intended may be coming off in the wrong way.
First of all, I wholeheartedly agree with Chase and Katie that practical, not radical representation, is needed for the LGBTQ+ community. While radical representation certainly has its place, when taken alone or in excess, it can be counterproductive by exoticizing LGBTQ+ individuals and furthering the toxic notion of otherness, or, to use the older, uglier meaning of the word, queerness.
That said, the productions mentioned in this article sound like they are worth seeing, and like they are exploring areas that certainly have much to explore. I agree with the author’s focus and value of intersectionality and its application to theatre as well. I take issue, however, with the author’s appropriation of the term ‘queer’ in general. While intersectionality is appropriate and necessary, the term ‘queer’ has long been one used to oppress LGBTQ+ individuals, and it is a term that is only now coming to be a positive, reclaimed term. There are still a lot of queer people who aren’t comfortable with the term, or who might appreciate the value of reclamation, but still prefer other terms for a variety of reasons. ‘Queer’ is a lot of things, but unless I’m missing something, ‘queer’ is NOT usually a term for ‘anything other than straight white heteronormative cis male conservative.' It is a reclaimed term for a group that has been oppressed by it. We wouldn’t think it appropriate if men of any sort tried to ‘reclaim’ the ‘C word’ or if LGBTQ+ people tried to ‘reclaim’ the ’N word.’ Those words have been historically used to target and oppress a specific demographics, women and people of color specifically, and those demographics alone possess the right to repurpose their tools of oppression. Intersectionality is extremely important, but intersectionality should not mean misappropriation and erasure. In my opinion, the use of ‘queer’ to mean ‘other’ rather than LGBTQ+ is a counterproductive and misinformed action.
Post a Comment