sexual personae

I for one already said all I wanted to say. Also a learning experience for me: I didn't know what "challop" meant.

I have never owned or read any of her books, and I don't suppose I ever will.

From media appearances and representation, she has always seemed to me like a rather strained, aggressive, ugly middle-aged woman who mostly talked a lot of nonsense.

On second thought, I do want to say one final thing RE pinefox above: why is it that people feel inclined to judge a woman's looks even though we're talking about her ideas?

Okay, this is a really interesting piece of writing that makes incisive and thoughtful points, and is without the bullying tone I find so off-putting. She also makes several points about the possibilities of a fruitful relationship with the church and the arts in america that I really agree with, so maybe it's easier not to feel, affronted(for want of a better word) by it.

I recently read this interview with Zizek, a writer whose work I enjoy despite frequent fundamental disagreement with. The bit that I want to talk about though is this: "What I despise in America is the studio actors logic, as if there is something good in self expression: do not be oppressed, open yourself, even if you shout and kick the others, everything in order to express and liberate yourself. This stupid idea, that behind the mask there is some truth. In Japan, and I hope that this is not only a myth, even if something is merely an appearance, politeness is not simply insincere. There is a difference between saying 'Hello, how are you?' and the New York taxi drivers who swear at you. Surfaces do matter. If you disturb the surfaces you may lose a lot more than you account. You shouldn't play with rituals. Masks are never simply mere masks.". Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not bringing this up just to childishly criticise Paglia for sheer abrasiveness, so don't immediately act like I am. The connection I just want to point out, a connection I feel about her work, is that she's too hung up on this notion. The mask and the fierce pagan poetry that it constricts. This is how I felt with Sexual Personae, that for her every code and symbol is a constricting element that ties up some surging primeval river or lust or ferocity. I can't really relate to this. I feel like, she misses the point quite a lot because of this gung-ho fixation.

In this case what I mean is, what seems to me anyway, a fundamental misreading of the aesthetic codes of Puritanical aesthetics. She confuses the rejection of ornament and imagery in early protestant religions with a rejection of art. I don't necessarily agree that their "attitude toward art (which) was conditioned by utilitarian principles of frugality and propriety" is necessarily not an aesthetic one. The puritan aesthetic, I believe, is mirrored more illustratively in the work of Joseph Beuys, obviously separated by time and continent. His notions about the spiritual properties of basic materials (through healing or insulating properties, etc.) seem analogous the practical frugal attitude of the early settlers in America. For them aesthetics became sublimated as opposed to eliminated. Their lack of adornment is obviously just as much of an aesthetic choice. Practicality and austerity are a type of beauty, much as nature is only read for its "signs of God's providence". Indeed, it's surprising to me that Paglia chooses not to see the savage beauty of these things, but for her beauty is always tied with decadence.

In the end she decides that art must embrace religion in order to revive itself. For me, though, the relationship between art and religion (and even beauty) was best summed up by Dave Hickey when he said (I paraphrase out of necessity, I don't have the work to hand) "Oil painting was invented as a way to show the inner light of Christ". The reason this is so beautiful is because it embraces how humble materials, gesso on wood panel, overlaid with linseed oil and pigment, could become an equivalent for the formlessness of belief. The frugality of the Puritans was a way of embracing the spirituality and beauty of practicality.

and actually, roxy made the point I've been trying to fucking make with almost every post, which is, YOU are not making arguments, you say you are but you're not. That wasn't an argument. All you said was: "there's a theory, what do you think?". The only point you've made about Paglia is telling us you know loads about her, but you haven't actually shown us you do. At all. Not once.

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l288/allskulls/Vision.jpg

vision pls text me

immediately v. urgent pls txt

Also paglia on gay men and prostitution (both things she know all about) are very o_O

Weirdly though, she kindof nails "Bears"

OK I know right, you've made a true effort, so here am I back again to this Paglia thing. There's one academic tradition which goes back to the Middle Ages called the "status quaestionis" which basically means that you're supposed to be familiar with the extent of accumulated knowledge and the current level of debate in any discussion which you decide to join. Nobody is supposed to tell you why they agree with a certain theory inasmuch as you, as a mature person, are the one challenging the ideas or the author under discussion. When you ask me to say why I think Paglia's ideas are sound, you're actually asking me to give you remedial classes.

I will give you three brief (and thoroughly unoriginal, as they've been part of these discussions for years) comments:

-Paglia has gone back to the emotional and sexual urges that induce or influence several of our efforts, including artistic ones. In doing so, she helped rescue culture from a stric, stolid structuralist approach;
-Paglia has built the bridge between ancient tradition, Romanticism and popular culture, giving us wonderful critical tools to perceive a linearity in Western culture; and
-after decades of deconstructionist relativism and obfuscation, Paglia, along with the Sokal/Bricmont book, helped revive the need for true knowledge, that is, to become a scholarly reader, not just a skimmer or a faker.

Your comment above on her text for Arion, where she frequently writes on education, feminism and so on, is good because it is based on you own perception. It should be pointed that puritan aesthetics derives from puritan ethics; she didn't invent it, she just pointed the contrast. There's no denying that the Reform tradition within Christianity produced works of great beauty, but you can just as easily point at a certain drabness in ornamentation which cannot be easily denied either.

About the Zizek quote, he's not really talking about Paglia's personae at all (the concept goes back to Greek drama and has a little Jung and Mario Praz thrown in). Think about it for a moment: you know he's controversial to say the very least, and he also often expresses himself quite unabashedly. When he says "no, don't shed the mask, don't look behind it, don't emphasize self-expression", he's actually trying to prevent you, the gullible reader, from exercising the same right that he uses and abuses, both as a writer and as a public figure. Why shoud he be entitled to define what and how anything may be expressed? Comparing both worldviews, which one empowers you as a person?

I agree with your last paragraph with the Hickey quote, don't see how it contradicts Paglia really except if we are strictly comparative; Paglia has often extolled the beautiful clarity bestowed by a monastic, celibate, rigorous approach to the arts and culture. Her only qualification was that this was an exception rather than the rule.

p.s: yeah, that too about homosexuality, it can be uncomfortable reading about her experiences, the vynil-covered NY bars in the 70s, the onset of AIDS etc. Paglia is very blunt about the aggressiveness of male libido and the counter aggression of nature, I find it educational but it can be very very blunt.She has a famous phrase about advising people not to read Sade before lunch, in a sense the same could be said about some of the sorry details she mentions and her directness whenever she discusses the high price payed by promiscuity. Again, she did't invent anything, she lived through that and she does not idealize it.

sex viagra, what do you mean?

Nobody is supposed to tell you why they agree with a certain theory inasmuch as you, as a mature person, are the one challenging the ideas or the author under discussion.

You brought no ideas up for discussion.

g.grinder, obviously not, because wer're not discussing Vision's theory of culture, we are discussing Camille Paglia's theory of culture. Her ideas are easily accessible to anyone who can read english. So if you try to challenge her ideas, it's always advisable to know at least the basics of what she thinks. Dismissal is often just ignorance.

Yes, you are certainly not being dismissive here.

That's right, because dismissing an unqualified negation improves the signal to noise ratio of the discussion as a whole. In other words: If you say "Paglia is dumb", that is ignorant and dismissive, but if you say "comments such as 'hahaha' or 'Paglia is dumb' are dumb", that is just cleaning the field.

Vision is Pipecock and I claim my £20.

kevin john bozolko i thought

Pretty sure it's the woman in the Youtube vid.

and then when the calf of incisive truth comes careening at full speed toward you...

estela be praised!

Vision, while you no doubt have excellent reasons for holding your opinions on Paglia, your style has all the grace of a person with a neck brace and a dozen fused vertebrae. This impairs the effectiveness of your message. Try bending a bit. It will improve your ability to get where you want to go.

Your may now reram your blunderbuss and aim my way for daring to elevate style over substance, where I am in fact just putting a flea in your ear. They say a word to the wise is sufficient. We'll see where you fall in that scale.

Aimless, sorry I can't do that because I refuse to dumb myself down to your criteria. I'll give a concise, for Dummies recap: whenever you want to comment about anything at all, know what you're talking about. A passing acquaintance with the subject. The Wikipedia entry. Anything except for unaware ignorance is a start.

Grace is dumb? OK. Be that way.

Ok, now for who I am. This is actually another example of defective thinking, this whole ad hominem obsession, but ok.
I am
http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/XsFilms/SnelPlaatjes/ActDouglasSpartacus.jpg

Any other examples of "defective thinking" you'd like to lecture us upon, Spartacus?

Vision, the first rule of ILX is DON'T BE A DICK. Your towering intellect does not exempt you from that rule.

I haven't really read The Vision's posts, but they look so long and hard-working that I would be inclined to be kinder to him / her than others here are being.

Why judge a woman's looks? Well, there are many things to say about anyone. I said a few of them. I mentioned her looks, and other things. I might do that with all kinds of other people, too, certainly including men.

Hm, I am just imagining someone writing sth like 'Nietzsche - ridiculously moustachioed weed spouting laughable macho rhetoric', which (whether wholly accurate or not) would be partly a statement about his appearance.

Neil, yes, this one really is a final comment for now as my sunday afternoon has been spent here (it was fun, beneath the vitriol I think some real issues have been discussed): real life is a constant intellectual challenge in the sense that the herd mentality is easily shattered.

You may not contradict your friends out of politeness, but the internet is there, in my opinion, to give us a chance to be totally candid without resorting to namecalling or offending people. Their ideas or lack thereof, on the other hand, are fair game. This is intellectually liberating; we are too constrained by PC convention these days. So, it's not a lecture, it's friendly advice, be humble and willing to learn and expect any debate to challenge your convictions and expose some flaws. Stepping out of the comfot zone of uninformed consensus is something we should embrace.

I was talking with a friend the other day telling her how "Time to Pretend" was the quintessential song of our times in the sense of ironically mocking and at the same time dejectedly embracing conventions of success and superficial insincerity. Why not be an individual instead of buying into this boring ethos? A german opera director once said that whoever marries the Zeitgeist is destined to become a widower very soon, so step out of social and academic convention and, like Paglia herself says, let the library be your teacher.

pinefox, sorry, no, the truth is that image is always used against women, and that's really sad. It's either "X is clever but ugly" or "Y is cute but really dumb". People never say anything about Harold Bloom's appearance, for instance, but every single woman in any intellectual or social field has her appearance scrutinized, from Emily Dickinson being too ugly to Sarah Palin being too good-looking. But that's another discussion etc.

Harold Bloom? That fat fuck.

I've read SP and the woman's Salon columns and I still think she has one of the worst styles of writing in the world. It is stiff, meandering, solipsistic, and presumptuous. Does she make good points? About as often as she turns all of Feminist theory into a bunch of strawmen (and women).

And Vision, if her writing is bad, yours is like staring into an abyss. You write like an undergraduate student (or worse, a precocious high schooler). You sound like one of those kids from Dawson's Creek. The truth is that I don't blame you. I have a friend I spent some of the weekend with who is in the middle of SP and he has started to adopt some of the same cadences and the defensive, contrarian rhetoric. I suppose that because Paglia defines herself against other people's theories, her students learn to argue in the same way. So, news flash: Arguing about someone else's text doesn't change your own in any substantive way. Making this thread about another poster only makes you sound like a dick. (In the colloquial sense, not the phallic one.)

Another news flash! Paglia didn't invent the Apollo/Dionysian conflict! OMgz. Lots of philosophers beat her to it. Other philosophers beat to her the role sex has in conflict. Even others beat her to the role that sex has imprinted and inscribed on your body. So she made a lovely mish-mash of Foucalt - Nietzsche - the very early Feminists that she claims to think are shit, and then she called it something new and ahistorical. I know, I know. According to Paglia, Paglia is a genius!

Oh, one more thing: I don't believe for a second that you're not a sockpocket. So I really just wrote this cause I'm venting at my friend who was swooning over Paglia.

I was talking with a friend the other day telling her how "Time to Pretend" was the quintessential song of our times in the sense of ironically mocking and at the same time dejectedly embracing conventions of success and superficial insincerity.

Proof Vision is a sockpocket. This has ILM written all over it.

The Vision, "sorry, no", I realize and agree that all kinds of women are judged on their appearance, in a culture which is in so many ways and dimensions unequal, sexist or misogynist. That doesn't mean that anyone's appearance is necessarily off-limits. I think Sarah Palin looks vile, but perhaps that's because I think she is vile. The same goes, in my case, for John McCain, and George W. Bush (who I oddly feel looks even viler than either of them). I quite like the way Barack Obama looks. I expect that Harold Bloom looks ugly and ridiculous (and his ideas are often ridiculous too). I have never had the impression that Dickinson was ugly, but don't know much about that aspect of her though I like what I know of the poems. George Eliot was arguably unattractive, but she was a magnificently intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable and gifted woman who wrote one of my favourite novels ever; her looks do not really occur to me when I think of these things.

But if I want to say that Paglia, McCain or anyone else is dumb, silly, histrionic, false, vulgar, irritating or, yes, ugly, then I will.

So, it's not a lecture, it's friendly advice, be humble and willing to learn and expect any debate to challenge your convictions and expose some flaws.

This sounds exactly like a lecture to me, and a po-faced ans stilted one at that.

and!

-Paglia has gone back to the emotional and sexual urges that induce or influence several of our efforts, including artistic ones. In doing so, she helped rescue culture from a stric, stolid structuralist approach;
-Paglia has built the bridge between ancient tradition, Romanticism and popular culture, giving us wonderful critical tools to perceive a linearity in Western culture; and
-after decades of deconstructionist relativism and obfuscation, Paglia, along with the Sokal/Bricmont book, helped revive the need for true knowledge, that is, to become a scholarly reader, not just a skimmer or a faker.

http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/899/pagliach6.jpg

Answer: No.

ILX: doing college freshmen's homework for 8 years.

(it was fun, beneath the vitriol I think some real issues have been discussed)

A running monologue with eye-rolling does not a discussion make.

Reading this thread has been like nothing so much as reading a person arguing with themselves to figure out what they believe by dismissing everyone around them. Hope you made some progress with your coursework.

I can imagine that Paglia probably has the OMIGOD, WOW factor if it's the first place one has ever read serious discussion of culture and gender issues. Like I can imagine that MGMT probably sounds amazingly droll if you've never heard ... oh, even something even as intellectually shallow as the Dandy Warhols on the same subject (with better tunes and haircuts.)

Being po-faced and contrarian is not the same thing as being adult.

It's been over 10 years since I read Sexual Personae. I don't remember much beyond the very basics of her argument. Which you might say was down to age and senility, but then again, I can remember other writers and philosophers I read around the same time with far more clarity.

Paglia is a great favourite among right-wing men who find her, as a feminist-hating woman who claims to be a feminist, a great tool for justifying their own attitudes.

I don't have much time for her. There are, quite frankly, other concepts and people I'd rather spend my (albeit limited) intelligence on contemplating.

Not me. Sorry Vizelka.

vision i got ur text!!! glad to hear everything worked out, let me know what else u need ~~

Mordy all kinds of OTM, and that Palin article... man alive.

I don't think Vision is a sock. A really poor troll, but not a sock. ILX is where trolls come to be schooled, and Vision's tuition cheque apparently just cleared.

I somehow missed Mordy's post there. Well said.

^^^nice u should script an action film xp

I didn't think it would be Kevin. Me and Kevin put our differences aside, man.

I won't get into what I think of Paglia's oeuvre generally, but I don't mind the Salon columns so much; the average one is a compendium of one-liners, unintentional parodies of academic locutions, batshit opinions, willful contrarianism, and some good bits.

I'm honestly surprised that anyone thinks that the whole of cultural criticism is any different than romance novels or comic books. It's kinda trashy and fun but it goes in the circular file when y'r finished with it.

I also don't know why I let "Vision" get me so wound up. I know my post wasn't amazingly well-written or anything, but I didn't think it could be so badly misinterpreted. Also, wrt the Zizek quote: a. I know he wasn't talking about Paglia, he was making a point that related to how we perceive Japanese culture, what he said was still relevant to the point I was making. b. Zizek is not saying "put that mask back on" what he's saying is that the mask, and the ceremony of social ritual are important. I mean this in relation to the great thrusting libidinous impulse which she constantly implies to be the be all of everything. Also, I find her comments on Gay men horrific, not because she doesn't flinch from the shocking power of the unsheathed male erotic impulse or whatever, but because it comes across as fake, as the fetishised wank fantasy of some prune who only cares about shocking with her vaguely transgressive and alarmingly touristic observations.

Also, libcrypt just said the truest and funniest thing ever written on ilx, so I hope you were all paying attention!

hey i know right vision just imed me and asked me to tell you that hes sorry for picking on you

If Vision is a troll (which is to say, merely posing as a priggish undergrad with an overblown sense of intellectual accomplishment in an effort to stir up a pointless commotion), then I must congratulate the author on a fine sense of parody.

I'm more inclined to accept Vision's persona as sincere. I interpret the self-concious inflation of Vision's prose and argumentation, as the analog of a toad facing a predator, who inflates itself in an effort to seem more imposing.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2v441_res-they-say-vision_music

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/NathanBernal/pufferfish.jpg

"Hi, I'm Camille Paglia and Sarah Palin is the best thing to happen to feminism since Lynndie England"