Critical Anthologies in Art and Culture
Johanna Burton, series editor ‘j” Mass Effect: Art and the Internet in the Twenty-First Century,
edited by Lauren Cornell and Ed Halter
Public Servants: Art and the Crisis of the Common Good,
edited by Johanna Burton, Shannon Jackson, and Dominic Wilisdon DOORTrap Door: Trans Cultural Production and the Politics of Visibility,edited by Reina Gossett, Eric A. Stanley, and Johanna Burton TRANS CULTURAL PRODUCTiON AND THE POLITICS OF VISIBILITY
EDITED BY REINA GOSSETT, ERIC A. STANLEY,
AND JOHANNA BURTON
The MIT Press / Cambridge, Massachusetts / London, England
CONTENTS
ix SERIES PREFACE
JOHANNA BURTON
xi DIRECTOR’S FOREWORD
LISA PHILLIPS
xv KNOWN UNKNOWNS:
AN INTRODUCTION TO TRAP DOOR
REINA GOSSETT, ERIC A. STANLEY,
AND JOHANNA BURTON
1 The Labor of Werqing It:
The Performance and Protest Strategies of Sir Lady Java
TREVA ELLISON
© 2017 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or
mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval)
without permission in writing from the publisher.
This book was set in Chaparral and PP Din by The MIT Press. Printed and bound in the
United States of America.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available.
ISBN: 978-0-262-03660-3
23 Cautious Living: Black Trans Women and the Politics of Documentation MISS MAJOR GRIFFIN-GRACy AND CECE MCDONALD
IN CONVERSATION WITH TDSHIO MERONEK
39 Existing in the World: Blackness at the Edge of Trans Visibility CHE GOSSETT AND JULIANA HUXTABLE IN CONVERSATION
57 Trans History in a Moment of Danger: Organizing Within and Beyond “Visibility” in the l970s ABRAM J. LEWIS
91 Out of Obscurity: Trans Resistance, 1969—2016 GRACE DUNHAM
121 Introducing the Museum of Transgender Hirstory and Art CHRIS E. VARGAS
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
135 One from the Vaults: 349 Canonical Undoings:
Gossip, Access, and Trans History—Telling Notes on Trans Art and Archives
MORGAN M. PAGE STAMATINA GREGORY AND JEANNE VACCARO
147 Everywhere Archives: 363 Contemporary Art and Critical Transgender
Transgendering, Trans Asians, and the Internet Infrastructures
MEL Y. CHEN JEANNINE TANG
161 Dark Shimmers:
The Rhythm of Necropolitical Affect in Digital Media 393 PUBLICATION HISTORY MICHA CARDENAS 395 CONTRIBUTORS
183 Blackness and the Trouble of Trans Visibility 403 BOARD OF TRUSTEES
CHE GOSSETT 405 INDEX
191 Representation and Its Limits
ROUNDTABLE PARTICIPANTS: LEXI ADSIT,
SYDNEY FREELAND, ROBERT HAMBLIN,
AND GEO WYETH; MODERATOR: TAVIA NYONGO
201 The Last Extremists?
HEATHER LOVE
221 An Affinity of Hammers
SARA AHMED
235 The Guild of the Brave Poor Things
PARK MCARTHUR AND CONSTANTINA ZAVITSANOS
255 Spiderwomen EVA HAYWARD
281 Proximity: On the Work of Mark Aguhar
ROY PEREZ
293 Dynamic Static
NICOLE ARCHER
321 Models of Futurity
ROUNDTABLE PARTICIPANTS: KAI LUMUMBA BARROW,
YVE LARIS COHEN, AND KALANIOPUA YOUNG;
MODERATOR: DEAN SPADE
339 All Terror, All Beauty
WU TSANG AND FRED MOTEN IN CONVERSATION
vi I CONTENT S CONTENTS ,,
SERIES PREFACE
Between 1984 and 2004, the New Museum produced six anthologies under the series title “Documentary Sources in Contemporary Art.” Initiating these books was ArtAfter Modernism: Rethinking Representation (1984), a volume that, more than thirty years after its appearance, continues to stand as a model for what it looks like to consider and reflect upon a historical moment even as it unfolds. Indeed, the pivotal nature of that book, and those that followed, evidenced a new model for scholarship within the purview of a contemporary art museum. Taking the art sphere (and its attendant discourses) as a nodal point by which to investigate larger culture, ArtAfter Modernism gave shape and visibility to an arena of debate. The broad questions being considered—Were modernism’s effects truly waning? What movements or reorientations were replacing its foundation?— found provocative, pointed answers in wide-ranging texts by equally wide-ranging authors. In today’s much-changed context, the seminal arguments that appear in ArtAfter Modernism are often discussed as having produced their own foundation, now itself in the process of being productively overturned.
Our decision to reinvigorate the series in the year 2015, under the new rubric “Critical Anthologies in Art and Culture,” came out of discussions with museum and academic colleagues, with students, and with artists, all of whom expressed a hunger for platforms that equally prioritize debate and experimentation. Rather than focusing on topics around which there is already broad consensus, these books aim to identify and rigorously explore questions so salient and current that, in some cases, they are still unnamed, their contours in the process of being assumed. To that end, the series aims less to offer democratic surveys of themes under consideration and rather hopes to stage arguments and offer conflicting, even contrasting, viewpoints around them.
The role of art has substantially, perhaps fundamentally, shifted in the last several decades. What has not changed, however, is its ability to channel,
I
I
magnify, and even alter the ways we approach the world around us. The increasing
speed and density of cultural information ironically create an even greater need
for the kind of rigorous and sustained engagement that the Critical Anthologies
volumes set forward as their ultimate priority. These books serve to underscore
the importance of intellectual endeavors as political and ideological acts. We hope
they will become, like their predecessors, invaluable documents of our histories as
we come to make them.
Johanna Burton, Series Editor
Keith Haring Director and Curator ofEducation and Public Engagement
DIRECTOR’S FOREWORD
Questions of identity have always had a place in art. One can scarcely think of a time or an instance in which the role of subjectivity has not, overtly or inadver tently, been raised by an object created by one person and looked at by another. Yet subjectivity as a topic unto itself has a shorter history, one that coincides, not incidentally, with a larger cultural awareness of the roles race, gender, sexuality, and class play in social life and the formation of identity. Contemporary art’s inter sections with feminism, postcolonial theory, Marxist thought, and institutional critique demonstrate that artists have been questioning the structures in which they live, work, and make their art for decades.
The effects of such intersections were—and continue to be—felt within art institutions, too. In some cases, museums battened down the hatches, insisting even more strongly on historical canons that mostly excluded artists who were not white and male. But many more institutions actively questioned histories that were taken for granted, and more than a few institutions opened their doors specifically to facilitate discussions around these and other emerging dia logues. The New Museum was one such institution, established in 1977 to provide, as founder Marcia Tucker put it, “a forum for dialogue, controversy, and visual provocation—a place where artists, public, and professionals of all kinds can once again become engaged in contemporary art in an active and meaningful way.”1
Over its now forty-year history, the New Museum has regularly presented exhibitions that question subject positions and the politics of identity, such as “Difference: On Representation and Sexuality” (1984—85), “HOMO VIDEO: Where We Are Now” (1986—87), and “Bad Girls” (1994), among many others; and books like Out There: Marginalization and Contemporary Cultures (1990) and Talking Visions: Multicultural Feminism in a Transnational Age (1998), both of which are volumes from the earlier incarnation of our Critical Anthologies
xI SERIES PREFACE
series. The New Museum’s commitment to providing time and space for artists to
consider their own and others’ place in art and the world is formidable. Trap Door:
Trans Cultural Production and the Politics of Visibility continues this tradition and
feels absolutely vital for this moment.
Trap Door provides a platform for emerging thinking and theories around
transgender cultural production. As the editors point out in their introduction,
the representation of queer and trans bodies is at an all-time high, in both art
and popular culture, manifesting what seems to be a great curiosity about gen
der nonconforming subjects and an insatiable hunger for images of transgender
bodies. Yet violence against trans people, particularly people of color, is also at
an all-time high, showing how starkly such “interest” plays out.
Trap Door examines the paradox of this moment: seeming embrace paired
with violent rejection. Debates around trans representation take on a special
urgency in the current political climate, with its escalating violence, daily roll
back of rights, and increasing discrimination. The book’s contributors delve into
issues as wide-ranging (and yet ultimately connected) as trans archives, main-
streaming, beauty, performativity, technology, fashion, craft aesthetics, collectiv
ity, police brutality, and chosen family. By considering these matters, the volume
inherently asks that institutions—art museums among them—consider their
own roles and responsibilities in the context of new cultural constellations, re
flections, and terminologies. Moreover, Trap Door hopes to ignite a conversation
beyond trans culture per se, insisting that while these debates and dialogues are,
of course, specific, they nevertheless have great relevance for all readers invested
in the ethics of visual culture. The publication of this anthology marks the third in our revival of a series
that was active between 1984 and 2004, during which time six seminal volumes
were coproduced by the New Museum and the MIT Press. The partnership
marks a shared commitment to the field of contemporary art as a primary plat
form for scholarship, intellectual exchange, and the evolution of new ideas. The
first volume to appear under this reignited collaboration was Mass Effect: Art
and the Internet in the Twenty-First Century (2015), edited by Lauren Cornell
and Ed Halter, which offered a singular meditation on how art has responded
to technology since 2000. The second volume was Public Servants: Art and the
Crisis of the Common Good (2016), edited by Johanna Burton, Shannon Jackson,
and Dominic Willsdon; that book explored art’s evolving relationship to activ
ism and the contemporary public sphere. We expect that future volumes, like
this one, will similarly examine and further dialogues around the most pressing
questions of our time as they emerge both in art and in culture at large.
For his belief in the need for this series and his commitment to it, our sincere thanks go to Roger Conover, Executive Editor at the MIT Press. Roger helped steer the first series of books we produced together, and we so value his part nership both then and now. We are also enormously grateful to the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and its President, Earl Lewis, and Executive Vice President for Programs and Research, Mariët Westermann, for their generous support of these books and the crucial related research around them. Further support for this publication was provided by the Shelley & Donald Rubin Foundation and the New Museum Council for Artists Research and Residencies.
Johanna Burton, Keith Raring Director and Curator of Education and Public Engagement, is the series editor for our relaunched Critical Anthologies as well as one of the coeditors of this volume. Her initiative, intelligence, and dedica tion in conceiving the structure for these books and overseeing every aspect of their production are fundamental to their realization.
My deepest thanks go to Johanna, as well as to activist, writer, and film maker Reina Gossett and to Eric A. Stanley, Assistant Professor in the Department of Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University of California, Riverside—the three coeditors of this truly groundbreaking volume. As the editors note in their introduction, central to the volume is the very question of whether and how gender nonconforming subject positions retain—or resist—legibility within a larger context that threatens to repress or appropriate anything that challenges the status quo. The rich roster of texts collected and commissioned for inclusion within these pages reflects directly on this paradox, asking that we understand art as always in dialogue with other institutions—from schools to prisons, hospi tals to courthouses—that administer and control the way subjects are recognized and accounted for, if at all.
Many other members of the New Museum’s staff have been fundamentally and enthusiastically involved in every step of this book’s publication, contribut ing not only sheer labor power but unquantifiable brainpower, excitement, and belief as well. Particularly deserving of thanks are Jeanne Goswami, who served as the patient and thoughtful editor for this volume; Kaegan Sparks, Publication Associate, Critical Anthologies; and Kate Wiener, Education Associate. Without Jeanne’s, Kaegan’s, and Kate’s tireless and committed work on every aspect of this publication, this project would simply never have come to be. We also wish to thank Olivia Casa, who stepped in to assist on the editorial front during the final stretch of production.
Still others within the New Museum lent support to the volume in crucial ways. Karen Wong, Deputy Director, was instrumental in advancing discussions
xii DIRECTORS FOREWORD DIRECTORS FOREWORD / xiii
about reviving this series, and Massimiliano Gioni, Edlis Neeson Artistic Director,
and Dennis Szakacs, Associate Director, Institutional Advancement, contributed
to the realization of this volume as well. At the MIT Press, in addition to Roger
Conover, we extend our thanks to Matthew Abbate and Victoria Hindley, with
whom we have worked with great synergy on the preparation of the manuscript,
as well as Emily Gutheinz for her design for this and all other volumes in the
series. To Faith Brabenec Hart, we offer appreciation for her excellent and thor
ough indexing. We also extend our gratitude to Paula Woolley, who contributed
to this volume in substantial ways. Finally, we are most grateful to the artists, organizers, theorists, historians,
activists, critics, curators, and collectives represented in this volume, all of whom,
in addition to contributing texts, dialogues, roundtables, dossiers, images, and
other materials, were distinctly invested in seeing the discussions in which they
are engaged brought together here. The individuals and groups who produced
new work and those who agreed to have previously published texts contextualized
within this new framework provide inestimable contributions toward further
ing this rich dialogue and making it visible. The materials brought together
here engage in an urgent contemporary exchange by asking a number of vital
questions whose very importance lies in the possibility that they may not find
immediate answers.
Lisa Phillips Toby Devan Lewis Director
NOTES
1. Marcia Tucker, “The New Museum: A Forum for Dialogue, Controversy, and Visual
Provocation,” Art Journal 37, no. 3 (1978): 244.
xiv I DIRECTOR’S FOREWORD
KNOWN UNKNOWNS: AN INTRODUCTION TO TRAP DOOR
Reina Gossett, Eric A. Stanley, and Johanna Burton
An image is powerful not necessarily because ofanything specific it offers the viewer, but because ofeverything it apparently also takes away from the viewer.
—Trinh T. Minh-ha, “Beware of Wolf Intervals”
TRAPS
We are living in a time of trans visibility. Yet we are also living in a time of anti-trans violence. These entwined proclamations—lived in the flesh—frame the conversations, interventions, analyses, and other modes of knowing that are captured in Trap Door: Trans Cultural Production and the Politics of Visibility. Consequently, we come to this project with a deep sense of possibility that also exists in an interval of anxiety. All three of us, in different yet sometimes overlap ping capacities, and via different yet sometimes overlapping self-identifications, utilize and are imbricated in the production, presentation, and circulation of visual culture. At the same time, we know that when produced within the cos mology of racial capitalism, the promise of “positive representation” ultimately gives little support or protection to many, if not most, trans and gender non conforming people, particularly those who are low-income and/or of color—the very people whose lives and labor constitute the ground for the figuration of this moment of visibility.1
This is the trap of the visual: it offers—or, more accurately, it is frequently offered to us as—the primary path through which trans people might have access to livable lives. Representation is said to remedy broader acute social crises rang ing from poverty to murder to police violence, particularly when representation
is taken up as a “teaching tool” that allows those outside our immediate social
worlds and identities to glimpse some notion of a shared humanity. To the degree
that anyone might consider such potential to exist within representation, one
must also grapple and reckon with radical incongruities—as when, for example,
our “transgender tipping point”2 comes to pass at precisely the same political
moment when women of color, and trans women of color in particular, are expe
riencing markedly increased instances of physical violence.3 Many of the essays,
conversations, and dossiers gathered in Trap Door attempt to think through this
fundamental paradox, attending to implications for the political present and the
art historical past, particularly with regard to persisting—if incomplete—legacies
of representation. Perhaps inevitably, such a perspective on representation is deeply rooted in
our personal experiences, which render the questions at hand less “contemporary”
than historically insistent, and less abstract than emphatically concrete. Indeed,
when first approaching this project—considering how art, fashion, and other
image-based works more generally function in culture—Reina was immediately
reminded of an invaluable lesson learned early on as a community organizer: that
immense transformational and liberatory possibilities arise from what are other
wise sites of oppression or violent extraction—whether the body, labor, land, or
spirituality—when individuals have agency in their representation.
Through such a lens, one may recognize more clearly the living stakes for
current representations of trans culture, insofar as they are necessarily a kind of
extraction and instrumentalization—if not outright recoding—of the artwork
and experiences of marginalized peoples and communities. In this regard, the
very terms of representation should not be considered apart from public life and
its regulation. Consider how Seymour Pine, the New York Police Department
officer who led the raids at the Stonewall Inn that preceded the uprising of 1969,
would later speak about the city’s moralizing penal code, which he was enforc
ing on the night of the Stonewall riot. In a 1989 interview, he observed that
these statutes, which formed the basis for New York’s anti-cross-dressing laws,
specifically targeted people in public spaces; as a result, the laws underscored
the power of being together and of fashion’s potential to destabilize the state-
sponsored morality underpinning the gender binary and, moreover, the basis
for who should or should not appear in public.4 In other words, to violate the state-
sponsored sanctions—to render oneself visible to the state—emphasizes that
there is power in coming together in ways that don’t replicate the state’s moral
imperatives. Fashion and imagery hold power, which is precisely why the state
seeks to regulate and constrain such self-representations to this very day.
The politics of such a turn are not monolithic, however, and if there is one trap in representation’s instrumentalization, so is there another in its figuration and, more precisely, its simplification. This issue has persisted since the very beginnings of the gay and trans movements in the United States. Notably, in the shadow of the gay political landscape that developed after the Stonewall up rising, a group of street queens—including Sylvia Rivera, Marsha P. Johnson, Bubbles Rose Marie, Bambi Lamor, and Andorra Martin—started organizing together under the name Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR). STAR engaged a particular set of issues generally overlooked by the white middle-class gay movement, whose realization was so encapsulated by the mo mentous events at Stonewall. Put more bluntly: although their life, fashion, and labor shared the same constitutional ground on which the entire early gay rights movement was built, poor people, mostly of color, as well as trans people who were sex workers did not find their own issues addressed or accommodated by the larger movement. The members of STAR gathered enough resources to rent an apartment in the Lower East Side, calling it STAR House. This small, personal act of resistance and refusal created space for those unruly to the demand of assimilation to come together and to support one another. At a time of height ened violence, just by hanging out with and taking care of one another, the members of STAR were doing revolutionary work.
STAR’s example, and the ultimate fate of its endeavor, bridges the gap be tween representation and reality in stark terms. As writer Arthur Bell outlined at the time in “STAR Trek: Transvestites in the Streets,” published in the Village Voice, STAR was evicted from its tenement brownstone when the landlord de cided to turn the building into a gay hostel. This was an example, Bell asserted, of how gay New York was being gentrified and whitewashed, while people who were poor or of color were being pushed out of the newly recognized and po litically defined nomenclature. Significantly, STAR’s landlord, Mike Umbers, owned a gay bar on Christopher Street (called Christopher’s End) that became commercially successful during the rise of the gay liberation movement.5 In fact, Umbers later became a sponsor of the 1973 Gay Pride rally—the infamous and first “nonpolitical” iteration—during which Rivera broke out onstage to remind people about their gay brothers and sisters who were still in jail,6 despite the progress being made in the larger cultural context. At least in part, Trap Door aspires to similarly resist resolution.
xvi I REINA GOSSETT, ERIC A. STANLEY, AND JOHANNA BURTON K NOWN UNKNOWNS I xvii
DOORS
Being mindful of how representation can be and is used to restrict the possi
bilities of trans people flourishing in hostile worlds, we persist. This anthology
takes seriously the fact that representations do not simply re-present an already
existing reality but are also doors into making new futures possible. Indeed, the
terms of representation require novel critical attention today precisely because
of their formative and transformative power. Put simply, if we do not attend to
representation and work collectively to bring new visual grammars into exis
tence (while remembering and unearthing suppressed ones), then we will remain
caught in the traps of the past. Trap Door utilizes the most expansive examples of art and visual culture we
can imagine. Resistant to the canonization of trans art (although we have in
cluded many artists who might appear in such a project), we want to radically
undo the boundaries of cultural production so that the category can come to
include modes of self-fashioning, making, doing, and being that fall outside the
properly “artistic.” Partly this approach arises from our own divergent creative
practices, which include artistic, activist, critical, and curatorial endeavors. Yet
our individual approaches should be taken to underline our collective desire for
a different visual grammar. For example, Eric’s film Homotopia (2006) and its sequel, Criminal Queers
(2016), codirected with Chris E. Vargas, respond to conversations in trans/queer
contemporary politics and utilize camp and humor to unfold difficult and knotty
issues. Homotopia is a radical queer critique of the institution of gay marriage. As
both a theoretical commitment and a material limit, it was made with no budget
and no grants. All the actors on-screen were friends, lovers, or exes who worked
collectively, writing their own scripts and developing their characters. Criminal
Queers was, in turn, a kind of response to questions audiences would pose at
screenings of Homotopia. People would often ask, “If we shouldn’t put all our
time and energy into gay marriage, then what should we fight for?” While not
wanting to be overly prescriptive, Eric and Chris suggested, through Criminal
Queers, that prison abolition might be one of the many struggles that trans/
queer and gender nonconforming communities should work toward.
Importantly, in both films, gender and trans identities are left unstable. Eric
and Chris knew that they did not want to traffic in the dominant visual econo
mies of trans images. There were no binding scenes, no “undressing,” no visual
cues that might lead the viewer to assume they “know” who these characters
“really are.” In contrast, they let the actors work with and convey their gender
however they felt: the actors might well have developed an on-screen persona
who is more or less similar to who they are in their daily lives, or perhaps they developed a character who is more adjacent. In effect, Eric and Chris chose to center a trans/GNC universe without giving the viewer the visual satisfaction of
“discovery.” This has led individuals who have watched the same film to variously ask, “Why do you have only cis people in your films?” and, “Why do you have only trans people in your films?” While the majority of the people in both films identify as trans, Eric and Chris have left the question of gender open in order to see in what other directions we all might take such projects.
Reina’s film Happy Birthday, Marsha! (2018), codirected with Sasha Wortzel, tells the story of Marsha P. Johnson in the hours leading up to the Stonewall riots. The film stars Mya Taylor as Johnson, a disabled Black trans artist and activ ist who was one of the first people to resist the police raid at the Stonewall Inn on the night of the riots. Beyond simply portraying a time when trans people of color were oppressed or acted exceptionally, the film tells a much more complex story that challenges the hierarchy of intelligible history and the archive that keeps our stories as trans and gender nonconforming people from ever surfacing in the first place. Following Saidiya Hartman, Happy Birthday, Marsha! enables a story to emerge “that exceed[s] the fiction of history. ..that constitute[s] the archive and determine{s] what can be said about the past.”7
Through making the film, Reina came to realize that aesthetics and image matter deeply and can exist against the current instrumentalization of trans visibility as an advertisement for the state. Happy Birthday, Marsha! achieves its goals by focusing on Marsha’s beauty and the beautiful ways that she and her fel low street queens made life and meaning out of the world around them, outside of the gaze of the state. The film shows something not normally seen on screen: a trans life, with its intimate sociability and relationships. What is visible in the film exists as fugitive to both the rational and the moral: how Marsha and her friends came together, laughed and worked together, made meaning of the world together, and, thanks to Marsha, how they dreamed together.
One of the scenes in Happy Birthday, Marsha!, not coincidentally, was filmed at the New Museum—not in its exhibition spaces, but in its adjacent building, a floor of which currently houses working studio space for artists in residence. Via Sasha (who was then working as an educator at the New Museum), Johanna was introduced to Reina and to the extraordinary film project in process. That encounter began a dialogue about institutional responsibility and chains of affili ation, about the politics of alliance, friendship, and platform-building. And that encounter eventually led to a conversation about this book.
Johanna’s own longstanding commitment to education and pedagogy, manifested within the museum and academic contexts, bridges engagements
xviii I REINA GOSSETT, ERIC A. STANLEY, AND JOHANNA BURTON KNOWN UNKNOWNS I xix
with representation in art with those being articulated in discourse, viewing
present circumstances in historical perspective. Seeking alternative approaches