..THURSDAY, YES! (why not?)
In discussing Ken Aptekar's After his license was suspended, Bal points out that the reframing of the Herbert Regnault original, rather than creating or maintaining a distinction, as frames usually do, serves to "de-otherize" or familiarize the subject of the original portrait. Is that just because it is reframing something in a way that is less otherizing than the original frame, or can an original framing also lead to an "embrace" in some way? In the context of social research, then, can a theoretical frame be empowering to or embracing of a group only if it reframes an existent, divisive frame? I mean, I guess the answer is yes, because there can only really be no frame around something if no one is aware of it as a distinct category. And in that case, any indication of a distinction is necessarily divisive in some way. But maybe that's taking this idea too literally. So how does a researcher use a frame to empower? Bal says that "for art to empower, it must be performative." I'm not sure I understand this concept, or the concept of theatricality in this context. And if Carrie Parker was necessary to make Aptekar's piece empowering, who is the Carrie Parker of research?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment