"The question of subjectivity remains." C. David
I've heard that Alan Turing, a fantastic homosexual, failed to find a
machine that could pass as a woman, sic, while thinking, in 1950, about
what came to be called artificial intelligence. Is this fair to state
publicly? Also, this informs transgender (TG) theory and queer theory
when it comes to passing, AI, Turing Machines, and other topics related
to spacial issues. The procedure of using a name used by the opposite
sex, for example, will not withstand much interrogation. Something more
is needed in order to pass as a woman in most spaces--maybe not this
one.
However, a "pure" space, according to TG and queer theory is not
really necessary. Why would it be necessary to have a "pure" (no sex at
all) space in order to be a woman? Especially this word "pure" seems to
have been used to harass women.
Jumping from Alan Turing in 1950 to Constance Penly in 1985
("Feminism, Film Theory, and the Bachelor Machines"), the person is
advised to consider fantasy or the fantastic as a subjective mode of
woman identity rather than an anaclitic (leaning on) or narcissistic
(mirror or phallic) model.(For those who won't pass Lacan, the question
of subjectivity remains unanswered)
It seems the time is ripe to pull this question of subjectivity out
of the machine, to answer it. The queens would have something to say, as
would the subjects no doubt. I'm thinking that passing as a fantastic
subject is a unique-to-do oblige, as difficult perhaps as passing as a
queen, in natural urban/rural space. I've used the trope of "passing as
a queen" to mean both noble and profane norms, and I intend to include
pretension as well as stealth and deceit in this role, this
subjectivity, because we are now discussing how art can be used by
business to make new products, how culture can exploit machines rather
than the other way around. Had I not been able to "trick" my machine,
for example, you would not be reading this, which may suggest
that this is not even being written by me, Hucklebee. Should I credit
Veronica or invent some other TG to avoid this gender war, to be humane?
Or lose on purpose? Fuck it please?
For, I believe that the point of subjectivity is that you are not
free to agree with me, that you must say no and also select your own
owning. To be more blunt, it's about the queen that can rule both death
(sorrow)(past) and hunger (taste)(future), this then is the ruler of the
subject, the question of subjectivity is answered as she who is the
ruler of the subject. The question of how to relate was answered
already, was it not? As well as how to deconstruct the non-subjective,
the objective identity of the State because it is not possible to be the
subjective of a State? This, I believe, happened a few days before a
queen visited to prove it wrong in person???
Jaakko Hucklebee
-- ------------------------------------------------------------- a forum on spatial articulations, perspectives, and procedures texts are the property of individual authors for information, email majordomo@forum.documenta.de with the following line in the message body: info blast archive at http://www.documenta.de/english/blasta.htm or http://www.documenta.de/deutsch/blasta.htm documenta X Kassel and http://www.documenta.de 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------