0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
154 tayangan36 halaman
This document provides an overview of the concept of "masculinity in crisis" and how male artists have depicted this crisis through performance art. It discusses how second-wave feminism in the 1960s-1970s problematized traditional notions of masculinity. The document then examines several performance artists, including Vito Acconci, Gilbert and George, Alastair MacLennan, and Stuart Brisley, analyzing how their works achieved "muscular masculinity" by destabilizing masculine tropes through techniques like phallic display and enduring abjection. It argues these performances can be understood as depicting a crisis of masculinity.
This document provides an overview of the concept of "masculinity in crisis" and how male artists have depicted this crisis through performance art. It discusses how second-wave feminism in the 1960s-1970s problematized traditional notions of masculinity. The document then examines several performance artists, including Vito Acconci, Gilbert and George, Alastair MacLennan, and Stuart Brisley, analyzing how their works achieved "muscular masculinity" by destabilizing masculine tropes through techniques like phallic display and enduring abjection. It argues these performances can be understood as depicting a crisis of masculinity.
This document provides an overview of the concept of "masculinity in crisis" and how male artists have depicted this crisis through performance art. It discusses how second-wave feminism in the 1960s-1970s problematized traditional notions of masculinity. The document then examines several performance artists, including Vito Acconci, Gilbert and George, Alastair MacLennan, and Stuart Brisley, analyzing how their works achieved "muscular masculinity" by destabilizing masculine tropes through techniques like phallic display and enduring abjection. It argues these performances can be understood as depicting a crisis of masculinity.
Muscular Masculinity and the Performance of Masculine Crisis
There is no term that defines the negative impact on the masculine subject when he encounters too much masculinity. However, there is a word that defines the negative impact of loosing ones masculinity, which is to be emasculated. This means to lose power and vigour, and because these are tropes of masculinity, if one temporarily operates on oppositional binaries, to be emasculated might also mean to become feminised. With oppositional binaries comes hierarchies and as evidenced clearly here, masculinity becomes culturally more important to the male than the feminine, which is why there can be no antonym for emasculation of the male subject. Therefore according to this argument there is no such thing as too much masculinity; that is until now.
Since the emergence of second wave feminism during the 60s and 70s, feminist gender studies has become an important scholarly research area (Walsh, 2011, p.2). Its emergence has become so prominent that it has had a major impact on other academic disciplines, especially theatre and performance studies. One concern of feminism was to highlight how tropes of masculinity, and their conflation with the male body, have infiltrated our cultural organisations and institutions. In the most extreme example masculinity has had, at least in scholarly research, a casual relationship with the concept of war. For strength, control, emotional detachment and power are typically seen as tropes for both and as such masculinity and war seem to rely on each other for a sense of purpose (Barrett, 2001).
Page 2 of 36 However, and to use an example that is less severe, masculinity is also present in the construction of the art world, which was most prevalent in the 1950s. This was a time when rational modernist and formalist artists, such as Jackson Pollock, presented a type of masculine genius where the artwork could only be read through the artist, of which needed to be both absent and present. That is, the meaning of the art transcends from the artist, but the body is invisible in that it is naturalised (Jones, 1998, p.62). This reinforced the masculine tropes of self-sufficiency, independence, and the centralisation of knowledge from the male mind. It also played towards the masculinist and capitalistic need for an art commodity. Whilst the artist was a central concept, his body was never present in the work, as it hid behind the art itself. To reveal the artist in this way would be to create a work that was ephemeral, which avoided the commercialisation of art (Phelan, 1993, p.11). This problematized the relationship with the critic and art historians of the time as they acted as priests, where they transmitted information between artist and viewer (Jones, 1998, p.63). In this respect a hierarchy was formed in which the artist was the site of knowledge, and where the audience was a receptacle of that knowledge.
Whilst examples of idealised masculinity penetrate all institutions, scholars like Judith Butler, Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray and Elizabeth Grosz have partly turned their attentions to reading men and masculinity. During the 80s and 90s and especially after Judith Butlers now seminal text, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (Butler, 2007), gender can no longer be described as the problematic domain of female subjectivity (Walsh, 2011, p.3). To keep it this way Page 3 of 36 would be to prescribe masculinity as normal, and linked naturally to the male body, which would reify the security and privilege associated with male patriarchy (Thomas, 2008, p.20). It infers that masculinity is a static norm, which is only associated with the male. Instead, and as Butler notes, all genders are performative in that they only exist at the moment where bodys perform actions and meaning is made (Butler, 2007, p.185). Butlers observation means that the celebrated tropes of masculinity, rationality, heroism, independence, virility, courage, risk-taking and strength, become products of cultural representation, which in turn reveals the conflation of sex and gender as a cultural construct (MacInnes, 2004, pp.312313).
The subsequent interrogation of the masculine subject through these postStructuralist feminists helped fuel what is now deemed as masculinity in crisis (Walsh, 2011, pp.67). This denotes a problematising of masculinity and its alignment with the male body. The aim of this essay is to articulate this crisis as a type of performative, in which male body artists during the 20 th and 21 st Centuries depict the destabilisation of the masculine subject. Some of the questions that are raised and subsequently answered throughout this essay include, how do artists achieve masculinity in crisis, what does it do within the performance, and how might it affect wider cultural understandings of masculinity?
The performance of masculine crisis is not a new concept to Performance Studies scholars Jones and Fintan Walsh, for example, articulate very different approaches to crisis through a range of different performance works. However, there are problems with both. Jones (1994; 1995; 1998) articulates how a destabilisation of Page 4 of 36 masculinity is achieved through phallic dis/play, but only infers that this might be a form of crisis. Walsh (2011), conversely, clearly articulates a series of masculine crisis in performance, particularly within the 21 st Century, but does not articulate a lineage. Both positions have a major affect on body art in that they limit a potential lineage of masculine. In order to articulate a crisis lineage this essay develops upon Jones concept of phallic dis/play by articulating how it can be read as masculinity in crisis. The fusion of crisis and dis/play, and their ethos, is referred to from hereon as Muscular Masculinity.
This new term is developed though this essay in three stages. In the first, phallic dis/play is read through Acconcis Conversions (1971), and the destabilisation of masculinity that occurs in this performance is identified as a type of crisis. However it also considers the problems associated with phallic dis/play in that it relies heavily on visual representation and that it has to wield the phallus in order to destabilise it. akirlar (2011) argues that the artist couple Gilbert and George offer a more appropriate form of masculine crisis through jouissance. However it is argued in this essay that this term operates on multiple planes. Both Acconci and Gilbert and George engage with what Lacan refers to as phallic jouissance, which is the difference between what one thinks the phallic object will give you and what it actually achieves (Lacan, 1998). This term implies that one has to engage with the phallus in order to reach phallic jouissance, which is argued here as being the apex of masculine crisis.
Page 5 of 36 The second stage focuses on linking phallic dis/play and jouissance with Dominic Johnsons understanding of crisis and risk through an analysis of Alastair MacLennans Out the In (1987) and Stuart Brisleys Arbeit Macht Frei (1973) (Johnson, 2012). In this section phallic dis/play is articulated though MacLennan and Brisleys ability to endure the abject in order to perform their own crisis of masculinism. Finally the third stage of this essay discusses, through Ron Atheys Four Scenes in a Harsh Life (1994), how muscular masculinity might be performed on the bodies of both artist and cultural organisations.
By reading representations of men and their cultural interactions through this instability, the phrase masculinity in crisis emerged. This was echoed not only in the academy but also throughout the media and in the actions performed by men themselves. In the dawn of this new millennium, for example, talk shows were covering regularly the representation of bad fathers (Walsh, 2011, p.4). The notion of the male bread winner has also declined along with industrialisation and manual labour, resulting in a blurring of sexual difference in employment (MacInnes, 2004, pp.314320). Mens health was also a factor to consider as *r+egular coverage *+ portrays mens ongoing higher incidences of suicide, alcoholism, drug addiction, serious accidents, cardiovascular disease and significantly lower life expectancies when compared with women (Segal, 2007, p.xviii).
Whilst these examples of crisis are read through cultural changes, some men demonstrate their crisis through a backlash towards the development of identity politics from the 60s, 70s and 80s. It wasnt, and still isnt, uncommon to hear that Page 6 of 36 as a result of feminism men have become second class citizens, that there has been a reversal of power that now leans away from white, heterosexual and western males, towards the feminazis, a pejorative term to describe extreme feminism (Walsh, 2011: 16). Of course, it is unacceptable to think that we are in a cultural space where patriarchy does not exist any more, this reaction occurs then not because patriarchy is fading, but because men fear that they have become redundant in their own society (Walsh, 2011, p.3).
This phrase though is far from uncompromising. Crisis suggests a level of unhappiness and failure, and as not all men are unemployed, cited as bad fathers, or are emasculated, as such masculinity is far from at crisis point. Further still, it seems that men are clocking up their crisis complaints as a strategy for reclaiming centre stage (Robertson, cited in Walsh, 2011, p.3). However, whilst the male is not in a position of inequality, far from it, these positions are problematic. The debate about masculinity in crisis oscillates between personal masculinities and masculinity as an ideology. This ascertains that all men strive for the hegemonic ideal, and that all masculinities are the hegemonic ideal.
It is important to note that *t+here is nothing wrong with being a man. The problems start with the way normative gender ideologies maintain inequalities between the sexes by reinforcing the idea that masculinity, but not femininity, is an unproblematic norm (Fisher & Shay, 2009, p.150). As such, it is worth considering three different understandings of the term masculinity as presented by Brittan: 1) masculinity refers to the traits, actions and behaviours of masculinity perceived Page 7 of 36 through the identity of the individual; 2) masculinism is the ideology and subsequent normalisation of masculine ideals created by men for men; 3) patriarchy is the reproduction of hegemonic masculine ideals in the domestic and public spaces. This conflates masculinism and the heterosexual male body and presents them as a naturalised centre of masculinity (Brittan, 2001, pp.5355).
The second term, masculinism might also be described as hegemonic masculinity: The term hegemonic masculinity refers to a particular idealized image of masculinity in relation to which images of femininity and other masculinities are marginalized and subordinated. The hegemonic ideal of masculinity in current Western culture is a man who is independent, risk-taking, aggressive, heterosexual and rational (Barrett, 2001, p.79)
This theory works on two levels, on the one hand it matches the tropes of masculinity to the functional requirements of the institution. On the other hand the inclusion of these characteristics within the ethos of that institution is then embedded within the attitudes of the subject. By focussing in on the second, the normative ideology of the masculine, this essay emphasises the crisis of a formal normative masculine identity, rather than ones personal identity. This allows for multiple masculinities to exist, both in the social sphere and also on the body, but it also tries to avoid casual links between men and patriarchal constructs. Thus, when this essay refers to masculinity in crisis it actually means that masculinism has entered into crisis by being turned against itself and revealed as a fluid concept, rather than a fixed and singular identity (MacInnes, 2004). By emphasising the ideologies of masculinity in crisis, rather than trying to read individual crisis, the term becomes a cultural performative attribute in its own right and can be read in many Page 8 of 36 male body art works in the 21 st Century (Walsh, 2011, p.8). Such examples of crisis might include the realisation that the notion of masculinity is more intimately linked to femininity or homosexuality than one first thought, as with Acconci. Or, that valorised tropes of masculinism are vilified through readings of war, which can be read through Stuart Briselys Arbeit Macht Frei (1973).
Performance Studies has been intimately linked to gender studies and as such there has been many interrogations into representations of masculinity in performance (Jones, 1994; 1995; 1998; ODell, 1998; Blocker, 2004; Walsh, 2011). This suggests that the interrogation into the masculine is not only reliant upon cultural and gender studies, it can also be read through the genre of work that is referred to as body art. During the 60s and 70s, the era that saw the most dramatic developments of the Civil Rights Movements in both the UK and the USA, select artists began to locate their bodies within their work. This resulted in the realisation that there could be no separation between the body of the artist, their self, and the production of work. Amelia Jones refers to this as body art, by locating the body of the artists in their work this meant that masculinist and formalist approaches to art criticism, where the author is the primary source of meaning making, are undermined (Jones, 1998, p.3). In doing this, the body of the artist becomes particularised and not assumed to be normatively masculine, hence other traits start to emerge that contradict spectatorial desires and assumptions. Traits such as race, class, and gender, to name but a few, meant that the need to know the meaning behind the artwork, was less important than reading the body of the artist within the space (Jones, 1998, p.5).
Page 9 of 36 The term body art though is not without its confusion. In reference to Vito Acconci, for example, Linker articulates that body art is simply the placement of the body in space (Linker, 1994, p.37). This undermines the nuanced politics that Jones sets out, which evokes Jane Blockers own reluctance to use the term. In the back pages of What the Body Cost she notes that, whilst Jones articulation is apt for the work that is being described, it is at risk of being misused in a way similar to that of Linkers error (Blocker, 2004). However, this essay will specifically use the term body art, with Jones in mind, because it emphasizes the implication of the body (or what I call body/self with all the apparent racial, sexual, gender, class, and other apparent conscious or unconscious identifications) in the work (Jones, 1998, p.13). It is not simply about the body in space, but rather how the body, the actions it performs, and its politics, represents masculine crisis in performance. It uses this to demonstrate how artists such as Vito Acconci, Stuart Brisley and Ron Athey, to name only three, allow their bodys to undermine the construction of a hegemonic masculinity, whether they are conscious of it or not.
Amelia Jones discusses how male body artists, such as Chris Burden, Vito Acconci, and Robert Morris, put their bodies on display in order to unveil masculinism. They use their bodies to perform masculinity in excess, revealing the bodys inability to achieve the masculine ideal and in turn present their bodies as feminised objects of display. By feminised Jones also means to infer a homosexualising effiminization of the male body. It achieves this because the presentation of the body/self in body art marks not the immediacy, unity and presence of the body/self, but its radical interdependence with the other (Jones, 1998, p.107). She uses the term dis/play to Page 10 of 36 describe this process and identifies that it is used, to varying degrees, to shift male artists away from a singular masculinity. It is the movement away from the singular masculine that might be indicative of crisis. Therefore dis/play constitutes the first stage of achieving muscular masculinity.
Jones phallic dis/play is intimately linked to Lacans concept of the phallus. Being a postStructuralist Lacans understanding of the subjects construction of self is read through Saussures Course in General Linguistics (Saussure, 2012). In this text Saussure notes that all communication contains signs that are made up of two components, the signifier and the signified. The signifier, or the object only has an arbitrary relationship with the signified or concept (Saussure, 2012, pp.6768). This provides two very important rules of Lacanian psychoanalysis: In order for the self to have meaning it must be constructed from a sign system, which he refers to as the Symbolic; As a result of the construction of self through the symbolic, the subject is always fragmented because of the arbitrary relationship that the sign carries within it. However, the subject is not born this way and as such they must move into the symbolic through the Mirror Stage (Lacan, 2005).
For the first eighteen months of an infants life, it is attached and dependent upon the mothers body. It has no way of understanding the world, as language has not yet been learnt, because of this all the infant can do is experience the events that happen around them. Meaning occurs through a splitting of the signifier and signified and this process does not occur for the infant until after eighteen months, when they begin to recognise their own image in the reflection of a mirror, or in Page 11 of 36 their playmate (Lacan, 2005, p.2). This reflection of their external self gives the illusion of being complete, unified and not an extension to the mothers body, this is the Imago or idealised image for the newly developing subject (Lacan, 2005, p.3). A brief but important side note needs to be raised here, as Lacans concept of the Mirror Stage has some resonance with Brittans three definitions of masculinity, which were identified earlier (2001). The masculine subject looks to define himself, and sees the idealised image of man through masculinism. It is masculinism that is the imago for the subject, it does not really exist and it is simply a reflection of male desire.
To see the Imago is to see ones self as not fragmented, but rather whole and unified, it gives a sense of meaning to our experiences (Lacan, 2005, p.5). However, at the moment of seeing it, the subject is seduced into wanting more meaning and the only place this can happen is in the Symbolic. Lacan notes that the symbolic is instigated by Paternal Law which is the prohibition against incest and which forces the infant to move away from the mother (Ragland, 2000, p.261). As he moves into the symbolic the gap between the signifier and signified opens up, and as Saussure notes, the signifier starts to bear little relationship with the signified (Saussure, 2012, pp.67 68). The irony behind the subjects desire for meaning is that whilst the Imago is the origin for his quest for meaning, the gap that develops as a result of the movement into the symbolic represents the fragmentation of the subjects self (Lacan, 1973, p.318). This incompleteness frustrates the subject and from then on they are in a constant and impossible search for the thing that could bridge that gap, so they can become their own Imago (Lacan, 1973, p.316). To bridge this gap becomes the role Page 12 of 36 of the phallus, and therefore it comes to represent the very thing that the subject both desires and lacks (Lacan, 1973, p.317).
When Jones uses the phallus she does so knowing that it is the gap between the male body and masculinism that the male subject is trying to fill. This reading is an immediate destabilisation of the naturalisation of masculinity as it infers that the male body both desires and lacks masculinism, which is interpreted here as the masculine imago. The phallus then becomes the traits, characteristics and behaviours of masculinism that can be seen on the bodies of some men. As the phallic object in Lacans Signification of the Phallus (1973), is only a metaphor for something else it disappears when it is exposed. Consequently, if masculinism is performed to excess on the body of the male, the male exposes the construct of masculinism as well as emphasising the intersubjective relationship his identity has with other subjects. This means that masculinism disappears from the body of the male, which causes a masculine crisis.
Acconci becomes a useful case study for understanding the phallus and also gender because of his interest in language and its ability to perform (Ward, 2002). When Acconci uses the term perform, it is not that as an artist he is interested in meaning making, but rather how language as systems can be penetrated in order to demonstrate their fluidity. This penetration of systems is most clearly articulated through Conversions (1971).
Page 13 of 36 Conversions (1971) is a series of three performances, which are filmed on a black and white 16mm camera. Each part constitutes the development of Acconcis attempts at transcendence from masculine to feminine. Conversions Part I (Light, Reflection, Self-Control) is a solo performance where Acconci attempts to make a new body by burning the hair off of his chest and manipulating his pectoral muscles. The performance starts with the flame of a candle appearing on the screen, which moves over the front of Acconcis naked body, highlighting its different parts as fragmented. Through this fragmentation, Acconci demonstrates the ability for bodies to blur the linguistic systems of gender definitions. On the one hand the candle highlights his hairy masculine chest, but when moving over his half lit shoulder, the pale, thin, and smooth skin of his arm becomes briefly indicative of his female body.
Once Acconci has burnt off his maleness, he pulls at his breast in order to stretch them into the feminine form. The pulling is futile though and as such he moves the candle to his other breast and burns off that hair. As the camera zooms out he places the candle down and with both hands he pulls at both breasts towards the camera.
After making his body in Part I, Part II (Insistence, Adaption, Groundwork, Display) is about exercising his new body, however this action still relies on the [re]presenting of the body in its relation to visual representation. The camera is in a fixed position and records Acconci moving back and forwards from it. Naked, Im practicing a new body: the camera shoots me from the waist down, Im keeping my penis confined between my legs, my body looks like it has a vagina (Acconci & Moure, 2001, Page 14 of 36 p.118). During this eighteen-minute section Acconci engages in a number of physical actions, running, walking, stretching, kicking, jumping, and sitting. During this film we are reminded of Acconcis sex, as his penis slips out from between his legs during his exercises, and his testicles are exposed when he turns away from the camera.
Finally as Part I and II, were engaged in a private making and exercising of his new body, Part III (Association, Assistance, Dependence) presents this new body in public. This is the only part of Conversions that uses another body, Kathy Dillons, his partner of the time. Similarly to Part II, his penis is located between his legs in order to create his vagina, although this time Kathy Dillon is behind him with his penis in her mouth. Two naked bodies on the screen: were all bodies my head is out of the film frame, her face is lost in my body. The camera jerks around us, zooms in and out, looking for the right shot (Acconci & Moure, 2001, p.120). For six minutes he reengages the activities that he created in Part II.
Acconcis aim in Conversions (1971) is to penetrate the linguistic boundaries of gender, which he presents as visual representations, and a type of language. In many respects this recognises the feminist understanding of a constructed gender identity. Despite his play on the construction of this system though, the performance can be read as inherently misogynistic. In the first instance he tries to destabilise the naturalisation of gender at the cost of the female body (Ward, 2002, p.144). He can only attempt transcendence if he re-inscribes the phallus over her, to make her disappear. Even if he was able to transcend to the feminine though, he does safely in the knowledge that at the end of the performance he is able to move Page 15 of 36 back towards the position of the privileged-body-with-penis (Blocker, 2004). There is absolutely no risk to his masculine identity, and as such he re-inscribes the agency that the normative masculine body assumes.
Secondly the language that he is setting up in order to penetrate relies heavily on normative visual representations. His understanding of male and female is through lack, and his primary aim, to transcend, points towards the mythical masculine construction of self-sufficiency, control and authority. It can be argued that his naked body destabilises masculinism because it reflects a Lacanian feminine desire to be desired (Lacan, 1973, p.215), however even this is problematised. When the penis is on show the male is almost always aggressively signified as virile, heterosexual and otherwise normatively masculine (Jones, 1998, p.114). In Conversions III, in trying to transcend those linguistic boundaries the only place that he can think to place his penis is into the mouth of a kneeling women (Blocker, 2004, pp.1213). This aggressively erases Dillon from the performance and once again centralises Acconcis body. Mia Schor in her essay Representations of the Penis (Schor, 1988) carefully outlines Acconcis failed attempts at transgressing systems of masculine and feminine: Acconci, an atavistically hairy male, has presented a male representation by becoming a woman. He strips, but then seeks to strip away all signs of maleness: First the hairs on his chest and then the penis from his body. But he has a penis and must put it someplace in a disappeared woman. So the phallus reinscribes itself over the erased/lacking woman, even as the penis is hidden, as usual (Schor, 1988, p.8).
However, by reading Conversions as a performance that inscribes the tropes of masculinism on to the body of the male, Part III also becomes paradoxical in that it Page 16 of 36 puts those tropes into crisis. In Amelia Jones terms Acconcis performance puts on display those tropes of masculinism and presents them as phallic traits that some men desire but simultaneously lack. It is the lack that becomes problematic for masculinism as this is the moment where it is revealed as not being naturally aligned with maleness. It is the desire for masculinism and the inability to achieve it via its tropes that reveals it as phallus. The effects of this in Conversions are multiple: masculinity becomes difficult to secure as it reveals its reliance on (and slippage into) the feminine and other rejected scraps of masculinity; the penis is revealed as an inadequate replacement for masculinism; masculinity becomes a slippery term.
In order for dis/play to work, the performances of male body artists are not necessarily defined as anti-masculine or phallocentric, rather they simply raise questions about masculinity. For example, the offering of Acconcis penis to Dillon does emphasise the lack associated with the feminine, it places emphasis on the masculine need for categorisation of sexual difference through visual representation. It is also possible to read this act as conflation between the penis and the phallus, but a more careful consideration of this performance also reveals a crisis point in masculinism. The male has to alienate, or separate, the penis from his body in order to allow it to achieve the status of the phallus. This becomes a recognition that the penis, the glorified site of masculinism, is not able to make the subject feel completely masculine, and as such has to be replaced or hidden by phallic properties (Lacan, 1973, p.318). This does two things in Conversions, it reveals that Acconcis Page 17 of 36 penis as an appendage is not adequate enough to achieve the ideals of masculinsim, and that it also needs to be controlled by the male.
Through Conversions Acconci demonstrates very little control over his penis or his identity despite his futile attempts. In Part III his penis is continuously slipping out from its hiding places and it is Dillon who has to carefully place his penis back into her mouth. This is also an example of dis/play, because in doing this whilst Acconci reaffirms the conflation of masculinity and heterosexuality, by using Dillon, any mythical phallic properties of strength or control that is attributed to his penis disappear. Further still, whilst this also demonstrates the hegemonic recognition that the feminine lacks the penis and therefore the phallus (and that the phallus is controlled by Acconci because he offers it to Dillon) masculine crisis emerges once again. In order for any of this to happen Acconci has to ask Dillon to be in the space with him, masculinity then cannot be defined by the individuals ability to be self- sufficient, aloof, and independent, rather for the masculine to exist the feminine has to also be present (Jones, 1998, p.104).
The problem though with Jones articulation of phallic dis/play through Acconci is that it relies heavily on the visual representation of masculinity through maleness. Furthermore, it relies on masculinity to be destabilised through the artist wielding the phallus (akirlar, 2011). The artist couple Gilbert and George offer an alternative understanding to masculine crisis through what their bodies write next to the abject. However, whilst they clearly perform a masculine crisis that might operate from Page 18 of 36 bodily drivers, their destabilisation of masculinity still occurs, at least partly, through phallic dis/play.
On first inspection Gilbert and George display some of the key attributes of masculinism. The most explicit trait is control, which is demonstrable in both their carefully considered image and also their work. For example, in both their private and also public life both artists are rarely seen without being similarly dressed. There are only a few features of their clothing that differentiates them from each other. This might include a slightly darker shade of suit, a different coloured tie, or the sporting of a hat for example. However, this careful presentation of self also bleeds into how they approach their work. In the short documentary film The Secret Files of Gilbert and George the couple take a camera down into their cellar to reveal an archive of potential, and used, material all carefully labelled and identifiable (Obrist, 2000).
The artists obsessive need to demarcate and mark as different finds its way into their artistic practices. In many of their images, they place a black grid over the top of their prints. This references their need to divide and separate components in their life, but it soon becomes apparent that these demarcations are not really dividing anything. Sometimes a few of the boxes in the grid contain an image, or an image is contained within a number of boxes, however often the images behind the grid bleed through the demarcation placed on top. The intersections where the horizontal lines cross the vertical lines may also be considered a metaphor for the Page 19 of 36 merging and blurring of cultural binary opposites. Further still, behind the grid lies the often abject images aligned next to the bodies of the artists, which become a literal representation for Julia Kristevas theory of abjection in Powers of Horror: [the abject] lies there, quite close, but it cannot be assimilated. It beseeches, worries, and fascinates desire, which, nevertheless, does not let itself be seduced (Kristeva, 1982, p.1).
akirlar articulates that what he finds interesting about Gilbert and George is their ability to exhaust and exploit the normative intersections of male and masculine through the use of abject fluids, specifically focussing on anxiety (akirlar, 2011, p.88). As such, their practice does not come from an identifiable position or a positionable identity, as in masculinism, but rather a space that rifts between bodies and pleasures; a type of jouissance that exists outside of categorisation. The point of the artists work is to find beauty in all things, this might occur through a sexualisation of the city, or alternatively by finding surprising patterns in microscopic bodily fluids (Obrist, 2000).
As such in order to destabilise masculinism in the way that Jones does (1998; 1995; 1994), one has to do so through the symbolic, and as this is the domain of paternal law, the act becomes kind of subversive and kind of not (akirlar, 2011, p.91). Gilbert and Georges work however is an ironic representation of the anxiety of what the masculine body writes next to its rejected fragments. This might include the rejected scraps of an organisation as described by Mary Douglas (Douglas, 2002), but Page 20 of 36 more often than not it is those objects that have been ejected from the body. It is the artists performed anxiety in their prints, when next to the enlarged images of their own bodily waste, that generates a masculine crisis. Gilbert and Georges pastiche of gender, their performance of a self-embarrassing, self shaming- masculinity operates in a similar multi-faceted layers of ambiguity, aporia, parody and seriousness (akirlar, 2011, p.92).
The difference between Jones and akirlar critique is that the latter comes from a knowing position of, and from, the artist, whereas the former is a reading that occurs despite the artist. Furthermore, Jones articulates a language of masculinity whereas akirlar considers the bodily drives and desires. This is made more pertinent when considering that it is the mothers body that is rejected by the subject for language and meaning in the Mirror Stage. As such it would stand to reason that by the very fact that Gilbert and George embrace the body and its abject fluids, their approach has greater destabilising properties than phallic dis/play.
However, this reading makes some unconfortable distinctions between language and the body, and as Kristeva notes in Revolution in Poetic Language (1984), the two are not easily seperated as they bleed into one another (Kristeva, 1984, p.13). So, even though Gilbert and George do expose the intersections of masculinity and femininity from a position of knowing, they have to wield the phallus in order to do so. The obsessive need to collate, collect, organise and demarcate is clearly evidenced in patriarchy. Michael Warner and Judith Halberstam, for example, identify how Page 21 of 36 spaces are divided to emphasise sexual difference (Halberstam, 1998, pp.2029), or how the public is clearly marked as a masculine space, where specific codes and codifications are acted out with regards to gender (Warner, 2005, p.24). The fact that Gilbert and George clearly control their self-image in the same way they demarcate their process and products reinforces the performance of control. It is a result of collecting absolutely everything including their shit, piss, semen and blood, and then presenting their bodies next to it that causes the phallus to disappear and present embarrassed anxious bodies.
In addition to this, the claim of jouissance that akirlar suggets that Gilbert and George engage with is appropriate, however there is not one type of jouissance. The term is generally thought to mean an excess of pleasure and pain, or specifically a tension that needs to be relieaved (Lacan, 1998, p.1). This though is a limited reading that Lacan suggests comes from a masculine perspective on the imago. The phallic object, as stated previously, holds the very thing that the object desires and subsequently lacks, total jouissance comes from the assumption that one thing can give complete happiness or an ultimate pleasure. In the case of Gilbert and George, what they might be demonstrating is the ultimate pleasure that masculinim demonstrates in controlling and collating all things as identifiable. However, as the phallus can never be attained, neither can total jouissance, instead the excess that the male subject experiences is phallic jouissance (Lacan, 1998, p.6). A term that suggests the attainment of the phallic object offers more than what is desirable to the subject. The anxiety that Gilbert and George perform is a recognition that by collecting and labeling everything at some point the male subject must experience a Page 22 of 36 blurring and subsequent fragmentation of his masculine self. Through the collection of shit, piss and semen and its subsequent magnification, Gilbert and George found a moral dimension where piss contains the images of crusifixes, blood contain daggers, and semen stars. They refer to this moral dimension as being you being all over you, and not just in your head (Obrist, 2000). As such Gilbert and George do operate within phallic jouissance, a place of bodily desires, but first they must wield the phallus and operate within the symbolic.
As such phallic dis/play causes phallic jouissance, which in turn ensues crisis, and this is something that Acconci potentially experienced after Conversions (1971). A few years after his performances to camera he notes in an interview that those works were specifically an attack on him (Sharp, 1973). Furtherstill in Body/art Performing the Subject Jones notes that Acconci recognised the apparent sexism in his own work, noting that: I hate maleness and I hate male domination, but because it is so culturally embedded I can readily fall into it (Jones, 1998, p.135). This is an example of how attempts for total jouissance, demonstrable through Acconcis obsessive desire for agency between masculine and feminine, can result in the performance of masculine crisis.
There are multiple examples of how crisis, or phallic jouissance, exists within performance through phallic dis/play. On the one hand Acconci demonstrates an unknowing crisis during Conversions and experiences crisis in hindsight, whereas there is an ironic and knowing presentation of it during the performances of Gilbert and George. However in the performances of Alastair MacLennan and Stuart Brisley Page 23 of 36 crisis is represented on their bodies and also the environments that they create. Whilst Dominic Johnson refers to the works of Gilbert and George as cool and sartorially unblemished he describes the works of MacLennan and Brisley as having an agonized subtereanean aesthetic (Johnson, 2012, p.124). This aesthetic and its impact is most easily described through Alastair MacLennans Out the In (1987).
Alastair MacLennans Out the In (1987) is located in a discarded room. The old wooden floorboards are laid bare with the exception of white dust, which forms a square in the middle. Demarcating that space in lines across one axis of that square is barbed wire, sometimes this is wrapped around objects such as exit signs, sometimes it has objects placed onto it like fish. Placed around the space are other discarded objects, which seem to have little in common with each other. These include one bloody shoe, old sinks, and two poles crossed at one end with black textile stretched across it. An old shopping trolley is located towards one end of the square and in it sits the only light, which dimly illuminates the room. The camera, like our eyes might do, struggles to focus on those objects. We can hear the distant sounds of the world outside, inside. There is a sense then that boundaries are constantly being tested here.
This is further emphasised with the introduction to the artist. In the corner of the room stands MacLennan, dressed entirely in black, facing the corner. He notes in an interview that hes interested in decay, and subterranean levels of consciousness (Dickson et al., 1988). The darkness, the discarded objects collected carefully in that old room, all seem to be encroaching on his space, and as such he becomes almost Page 24 of 36 invisible. There are objects like the dead fish, and the bloody shoe, which reference the abject directly, whilst others are indexical of it: the bathroom sinks threaten to contain remnants of someone elses spittle, the empty fish tank is a reminder of animals that once existed, and the x-rays of skulls and birds wings located around the edge of the room present the inside outside. Abjection disturbs identity systems, it does not respect borders, and it draws the subject towards the place where meaning collapses (Kristeva, 1982, p.4). The subject in the corner of the room becomes a body, an object alongside all those other objects. The darkness surrounding that body consumes it, as do the objects, it becomes inarticulate, and it is almost unable to be identified as different. There is always a reminder though that that body is a subject. MacLennans slow breathing makes sure that the abject does not completely beseech all boundaries.
The subterranean aesthetics of the performance of existentialism in crisis, death, dirt, discarded objects, and the constant threat of consumption, can be neatly wrapped up with the embracement of the abject. Through the above reading, artists akin to Brisley and MacLennan perform masculine crisis through the representation of broken borders and collapsed meaning. In this respect subterranean artists in the UK, and also those who perform masculine crisis, might be best described as troublemakers. This term mildly refers to the offense caused to the masculine subject as a result of its clear boundaries being beseeched (Butler, 2007, p.xxix). These artists make trouble because they upset masculinity through threatening to force its collapse into nothingness (Walsh, 2011, p.11). However, it is worth noting here that the terms threaten and force are also terms that might be synonymous Page 25 of 36 with power, control, and strength. So whilst Brisley and MacLennan actively embrace the abject, just like Gilbert and George, they also embrace phallic dis/play in order to achieve this.
Arbeit Macht Frei (1973) was conceived in response to a previous performance And For TodayNothing (1972). In this performance Stuart Brisley laid in a bath of black water, for approximately two hours a day for two weeks. The lighting was low, which meant that the performance was difficult to navigate, the only sign of movement was his body slowly rising up and then sinking back under the water. In the basin next to the bath laid some offal, and over the space of those two weeks it rotted, maggots hatched and turned into flies (Brisley, n.d.).
Arbeit Macht Frei (1973) is a twenty-minute, black and white, 16 mm film, which responded to this performance. However, it was also a total rejection of the concept that lied behind the title. Those words were presented in wrought iron above many of the entrances to German concentration camps in World War II. They translate into Work Makes Free. In an interview with Catherine Wood at the Tate, Brisley says that this work is a literal representation through the body, of what the mind rejects (Tate, 2011). In this respect this means that what cannot be ingested, or accepted in to ones self must be rejected. As such, this work responds to the atrocities of humanity, and more specifically towards the holocaust, as concepts that he struggles to accept. Arbeit Macht Frie (1973) is the deliberation and careful consideration on the meaningless of humanity.
Page 26 of 36 His work is an exploration of the parameters of the body, which he uses to explore conceptual boundaries for the purpose of finding common meaning (Brisley, 2006). Common meaning does not infer a fixed understanding of an event, action or a series of signs, rather it refers to the polysemy of heterogonous meanings. He states quite clearly that the performances that he has created are not necessarily focused on political positions, however they might be indexical of them.
The vomiting at the beginning of Arbeit Macht Frei (1973) does not only come to represent Brisleys rejection of the idea of the holocaust, but also the recognition that those actions can be associated with the masculine subject. This is because the virtues of masculinism also define the vices that caused the holocaust in World War II, violence, authority, control, and emotional detachment. As such, those same actions also come to define the masculine subject. Further still, whilst ones actions defines oneself, they also define an ideal and thus the subject of those actions becomes a legislator for them (Sartre, 2007, p.25). What exacerbates this is that by being defined by those actions, the masculine subject is being observed:
Everything happens to everyman as if the entire human race were staring at him and measuring himself by what he does. So everyman ought to be asking am I really a man who is entitled to act in such a way that the entire human race should be measuring itself by my actions? and if he does not ask himself that, he masks his anguish (Sartre, 2007, pp.2627).
With this in mind Brisleys ejection of his bodily fluid also stands in for the masculine subject realising that his appropriation of masculine tropes is a reinforcement for the Page 27 of 36 atrocities of war. Therefore, the demonstration of abjection in Arbeit Macht Frie is a metaphor for the rejection of masculinism.
So far this essay has established that muscular masculinity is comprised of both phallic dis/play and crisis. Whilst phallic dis/play is easier to define in that it is demonstrated by the excessive performance of masculine tropes, crisis is slightly more difficult. Masculine crisis occurs most often in the performance, either because masculinity is destabilised through phallic dis/play or afterwards when an artist recognises how closely they resemble hegemonic masculinity as with Acconci. Alternatively, it also exists as a metaphor for wider cultural concerns as with Stuart Brisleys Arbeit Macht Frie (1973) where his vomiting at the beginning of the film is also a rejection for masculinism and its relationship with war. In both cases they demonstrate that masculine crisis is indicative of phallic jouissance. A term that usefully recognises that too much masculinity is as problematic for the male subject as it is to be emasculated at least in the eyes of masculinism. However, whilst muscular masculinity has been demonstrated so far as being performed by the artist, there are also examples where muscular masculinity has caused a physical masculine crisis on a wider cultural scale. One example of this type of muscular masculinity is demonstrated in Ron Atheys Four Scenes of a Harsh Life (1994).
To articulate muscular masculinity only through Athey and his performances would simply replicate what has already been said in this essay. For example, his work uses overt examples of phallic dis/play, of which demonstrate crisis both in his self and in his performances. In Four Scenes in a Harsh Life (1994) for example he insistently Page 28 of 36 centralises himself through the spoken narratives of his own autobiography, which are punctured with vignettes of his troubled past. Through these devices he carefully controls the image of his self, and it becomes clear that it helps to read his work through his own esoteric experiences (Johnson, 2013b, p.11) . In addition to this, the use of pain also features heavily in his work. In the scene suicide bed, for example, Athey references his fifteen years of heroin addiction by tying a tourniquet to his arm and then injecting twenty hypodermic needles starting from his forearm and finishing at his shoulder. There are other references as well: his Pentecostal upbringing through his performance of a Christian Sermon; the matriarchal influences of his Grandmother, aunt and mother, through drag and the creation of hatchet pussies (a term that refers to the sewing up of ones testicles and penis into the groin to infer the creation of a vagina); and his own sadomasochist preferences through the infliction of pain onto other bodies. Considering these Athey does perform the masculine tropes of violence, control, and self-sufficiency.
As with Acconci, Gilbert and George, Brisley and MacLennan, however, Athey cannot just be described as misogynistic as his work puts into question masculinity. He demonstrates this through his performances, but more importantly his work causes crises of masculinity in Western cultures. Whilst there are many examples of this throughout Four Scenes in a Harsh Life (1994), the one that will be bought into focus is the performance of The Human Printing Press. This was performed for the Fifth Annual Minneapolis LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender] Film Festival at a 100 seat fringe venue called Patricks Caberet 1994.
Page 29 of 36 In this performance Divinity Fudge, Atheys co-performer kneeled face down in a dentist chair, whilst Athey cut linear lines into his back, and blotted them with absorbent paper. After handing them to an assistant, they were pinned to cables and hoisted out above the audiences heads. Whilst the event went a head without any problems, Mary Abbe from the Minnesota Star Tribune reported that HIV Positive infected blood rained down on the audience below, this is despite Divinity Fudge being HIV Negative. Soon the national American newspapers caught hold of the story, which led to heated discussions in Congress (Johnson, 2013a, p.64). It was here American Senate Jesse Helms called Athey a cockroach on the Senate floor and the NEA, who funded Athey only $150, had their funding slashed by over eight million dollars (Johnson, 2012, p.124).
Partly as a result of this American reaction, and partly because of UK national politics, the ICA, the contemporary arts institute that had curated Four Scenes in a Harsh Life in 1995, asked Athey to make a number of changes to his performance. One change was the removal of The Human Printing Press vignette altogether. Athey conceded in the end, and replaced the live scene with a performance to camera depicting the same acts that received so much controversy in America. However, the pain and violence he inflicted on his body remained in the performance.
It becomes apparent then through the reading of this case that it is acceptable to cause pain on ones self in the live space, but to do so on another consenting body is illegal, and as such, in law we have limited agency over our bodies (Johnson, 2012). Page 30 of 36 In Four Scenes in a Harsh Life Athey, and his co-performer, reclaim their bodies from the control of patriarchy. They perform a masculine crisis by exposing the restrictive contradictions associated with masculinity. It is possible to have control and authority, but not over your own body.
This essay aimed to articulate how the cultural phenomenon masculinity in crisis might be defined as a type of performative, in which male body artists during the 20 th and 21 st Centuries depict the destabilisation of the masculine subject. Some of the questions that were raised during this essay, were how do artists achieve masculinity in crisis, what does it do within the performance, and how might it affect wider cultural understandings of masculinity? An attempt at answering these questions was made through the definition of muscular masculinity, which was an amalgamation between Amelia Jones theory on phallic dis/play, and Fintan Walshs, and Dominic Jonsons, different understandings of crisis. Through an analytical reading of Acconcis Conversions (1971), this excess of masculinity can be read through Lacans theory of phallic jouissance, which in turn is indicative of a masculine crisis. What this revealed was the different ways in which muscular masculinity was demonstrated across multiple examples of body art.
As a result of this, artists who have not previously been aligned together, for example Vito Acconci and Stuart Brisley, start to form a lineage of works that explore masculinity in crisis through muscular masculinity. This is heightened further when one thinks of Ron Athey, whose work presents an individual and cultural masculine crisis through phallic dis/play. As a result of Atheys own success within the UK Live Page 31 of 36 Art Scene from the late nineties, he has developed his own aesthetic, which younger artists have started to employ. By reading these works it is also possible to see how they also operate within the lineage of muscular masculinity. Take for example Kris Canavan and Nick Kilby in their performance Version 2.3 which was presented at Tempting Failure in 2012. Connected to each other by ropes attached by hooks to their skin the two fight. They hold each other down, punch each other, and pour paint over their naked bodies. After setting alight an old rag and hanging it from the garage door of ]Performance Space[, the two remove their surgical staples that were used to produce their hatchet fannies. Revealing their penises, they piss on the fire in order to put it out. This performance demonstrates clearly the use of hegemonic masculine tropes, violence, control, endurance, and humiliation, but at the same time this performance is not a reinforcement of hegemony. The work presented is homoerotic, it blurs the line between heterosexuality and homosexuality, aggression and passivity, and it reconsiders the concept of agency over ones body.
In addition to the performance of masculine tropes and crisis, what seems to link these artists together is their consistent attack on themselves. Vito Acconci talks about the use of the camera to attack his body in Conversions, whereas in order for Brisley to reject masculinsim he must first of all put his body in crisis. MacLennans performance of Out the In (1987) locates his body within discarded objects, which seem to encroach on his subject. Finally Atheys own aggression on his body in Four Scenes in a Harsh Life feels like an indexical reliving of his trauma. Muscular Page 32 of 36 masculinity can be defined as a self-destructive masculine crisis, where masculinism is aggressively turned against itself.
However, there are other examples of male body artists who are not easily read through muscular masculinity, but still perform a type of masculinity in crisis. Whilst artists such as Bob Flanagan engaged with sadomasochistic practices similarly to Ron Athey, his challenge to masculinity was very different. Maybe his access to this was through his illness. As a suffer of cystic fibrosis, Bob Flanagan performed, what Judith Halberstam describes as, a rejected scrap of masculinity (Halberstam, 1998, p.3). Despite this though, his level of endurance and acceptance of pain was in many respects astonishing. This is demonstrated in multiple spaces, which include his relationship with his Mistress Sheree Rose; the intense medicinal massages he received to relieve the symptoms of his chronic illness; and his own masochistic desires, which are immortalized in the now infamous photograph of Flanagan performing in Autopsy where he hammered a nail through his scrotum into a wooden chair (Jones, 1998, p.231).
Bob Flanagan though is not about performing masculine tropes to excess in order to achieve crisis, rather than destroying himself there is a distinct feeling that he established his Selfs within the performance space. Other artists who might be aligned with this type of work include Martin OBrien and also Adrian Howells. As such this essay recognises the existence of multiple masculine crises outside of muscular masculinity. There needs to be then an attempt at defining the lineage of Page 33 of 36 masculine crisis that Flannagan, Howells and OBrien operate within, how it exists on the body of those artists, and the strategies they use in order to generate it. Page 34 of 36 Bibliography Acconci, V. & Moure, G. (2001) Vito Acconci: Writings, Works, Projects. G. Moure ed. Barcelona, Ediciones Poligrafa. Barrett, F.J. (2001) The Organizational Construction of Hegemonic Masculinity: The Case of the US Navy. In: S. M. Whitehead & F. J. Barrett eds. The Masculinities Reader. Cambridge, Polity Press Ltd, pp.7799. Blocker, J. (2004) What the Body Cost: Desire, History, and Performance. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Brisley, S. And for today...Nothing [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.stuartbrisley.com/pages/27/70s/Works/And_for_today____nothi ng/page:7> [Accessed 25 February 2014]. Brisley, S. (2006) Stuart Brisley. Illuminations. Brittan, A. (2001) Masculinities and Masculinism. In: S. M. Whitehead & F. J. Barrett eds. The Masculinities Reader. Cambridge, Polity Press Ltd, pp.51 55. Butler, J. (2007) Gender Trouble Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 2nd ed. Oxon, Routledge. akirlar, C. (2011) Masculinity, Scatology, Mooning and the ueer/able Art of Gilbert and George: On the Visual Discourse of Male Ejaculation and Anal Penetration. Paragraph, 34 (1), pp.84104. Dickson, M., Clark, B. & MacLennan, A. (1988) OUT THE IN [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.vads.ac.uk/collections/maclennan/interviewvariant.htm> [Accessed 25 February 2014]. Douglas, M. (2002) Purity and Danger: An analysis of concept of pollution and taboo. Classic Ed. London and New York, Taylor & Francis e-Library. Fisher, J. & Shay, A. (2009) When Men Dance: Choreographing Masculinities Across Borders. J. Fisher & A. Shay eds. Oxford, Oxford University Press, USA. Halberstam, J. (1998) An Introduction to Female Masculinities: Masculinity without Men. Duke, Duke University Press. Johnson, D. (2013a) Does a Bloody Towel Represent the Ideals of the American People?: Ron Athey and the Culture Wars. In: D. Johnson ed. Pleading in the Blood: The Art and Performances of Ron Athey. London, Intellect and Live Art Development Agency, pp.6493. Page 35 of 36 Johnson, D. (2012) Intimacy and Risk in Live Art. In: D. Heddon & J. Klein eds. Histories and Practices of Live Art. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, pp.121147. Johnson, D. (2013b) Introduction: Towards A Moral And Just Psychopathology. In: Domin ed. Pleading in the Blood: The Art and Performances of Ron Athey. Intellect, Limited. Jones, A. (1998) Body art/performing the subject. In: Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, pp.103 150. Jones, A. (1994) Dis/playing the phallus: male artists perform their masculinities. Art History, 17 (4), pp.546584. Jones, A. (1995) No Clothes Make the Man: The Male Artist as a Performatice Function. Oxford Art Journal, 18 (2), pp.1832. Kristeva, J. (1984) Revolution in Poetic Language. Chichester, Columbia University Press. Kristeva, J. (1982) The Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. Chichester, Columbia University Press. Lacan, J. (1998) On Jouissance. In: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan: On Feminine Sexuality The Limits of Love and Knowledge. Book XX: Encore 1972-1973. New York, W. W. Norton & Company Inc, pp.1 13. Lacan, J. (1973) Signification of the Phallus. In: J.-A. Miller ed. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis: The Seminars of Jacques Lacan Book XI. London, W.W. Norton & Company. Lacan, J. (2005) The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the/as Revealed in the Psychoanalytic Experience. In: Lacan: Ecrits A Selection. London, Taylor & Francis e-Library, pp.16. Linker, K. (1994) Vito Acconci. New York, Rizzoli International Publishers. MacInnes, J. (2004) The Crisis of Masculinity and the Politics of Identity. In: S. M. Whitehead & F. J. Barrett eds. The Masculinities Reader. Cambridge, Polity Press Ltd, pp.311329. ODell, K. (1998) Contract With the Skin, Masochism, Performance Art and the 1970s. Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press. Obrist, H.U. (2000) The Secret FIles of Gilbert and George. Voila. Phelan, P. (1993) Unmarked: The Politics of Performance. New York, Routledge. Page 36 of 36 Ragland, E. (2000) How the Fact That There Is No Sexual Relation Gives Rise to Culture. In: M. A. Wallach & H. Sussman eds. The Subject of Lacan: A Lacanian Reader for Psychologists. New Jersey, State University of New York Press, pp.251273. Sartre, J.-P. (2007) Existentialism is a Humanism. J. Kulka ed. Yale University Press. Saussure, F. de (2012) Course in General Linguistics. C. Bally & A. Sechehaye eds. Forgotten Books. Schor, M. (1988) Representations of the Penis. M/E/A/N/I/N/G, 4. Segal, L. (2007) Slow Motion: Changing Masculinities, Changin Men. 3rd ed. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan. Sharp, W. (1973) Willoughby Sharp Videoviews Vito Acconci. Electronic Arts Intermix. Tate (2011) Stuart Brisley: Arbeit Macht Frei [Internet]. Available from: <http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/audio/stuart-brisley-arbeit-macht- frei> [Accessed 25 February 2014]. Thomas, C. (2008) Masculinity, Psychoanlysis, Straight Queer Theory. New York and Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan. Walsh, F. (2011) Male Trouble: Masculinity and the Performance of Crisis. London, Palgrave Macmillan. Ward, F. (2002) In Private and Public. In: Vito Acconci. London, Phaidon Press Limited, pp.1867. Warner, M. (2005) Publics And Counterpublics. New York, Zone Books.
The Capitalocene Hero: Exploring Climate Change, Capitalism and Hegemonic Masculinity in Lydia Millet's How The Dead Dream and Nathaniel Rich's Odds Against Tomorrow by Sagnik Yadaw