Pese a varios intentos, hasta hoy nadie ha logrado llevar la novela de Pedro Lemebel al cine. Al menos cuatro organizaciones aseguran tener la titularidad. Que Lemebel trabajaba para una productora. Sobre todo de amor. Por ello, hubo muchos interesados en llevar la obra al cine. El primer intento vino desde Italia.

Author:Daijin Gugis
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):19 November 2015
PDF File Size:7.42 Mb
ePub File Size:11.78 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Gradually he turned from art to transvestite makeup in which the burnt wings of his little homosexual heart blossomed. These books were published several years before Paul B.

Preciado became one of the most important and radical gender theorists of recent decades. He explains that he came across Lorenza by chance in while he was teaching a course on exploring the politics of the body in artistic and literary practices in the post-dictatorship years in Spain.

He says he wanted to map artistic practices, paying particular attention to corporal dissidence and functional diversity. Fischer also wrote that she had studied at the School of Art and Design, Kassel, that she did performances in New York, and that she had lived in Barcelona and Munich.

But as well as building up a biographical understanding of her, for Preciado it was essential to discover where her work was. I think Lorenza found me, not the other way around. It had been stored for years in Munich in conditions that had made its conservation hard, so what Preciado needed was a team of experts, and above all, a budget.

Preciado was named curator of documenta 14, the prestigious art exhibition that takes place in Kassel, and which in also took place in Athens for the first time. But beyond some brief anecdotes such as these little is known of her relationship to Chile.

Sometimes reading her interviews made my sides split with laughter. Other times they made me cry. I also saw her on the TV.

Lorenza created with her mouth and her feet. Added to this functional dissidence is that of gender: Lorenza depicted herself in photos and paintings as neither man nor woman. Lorenza combines and confuses life and art, a common enough practice in the second half of the 20 th century. In Europe and the US Lorenza did hundreds of performances and danced-paintings, which were often street interventions in which she painted the ground with her feet as she danced.

In New York, thanks to a scholarship from the University of New York Steinhardt, she undertook further studies in art, fell in with the local art scene and even posed for photographers such as Robert Mapplethorpe and Joel Peter Witkin. She made her body visible, installing it on the street and at the centre of her work.

Soro exhibited a travel notebook in which he had dedicated a chapter to the moment he met Lorenza in Munich in He developed a friendship with Lorenza that lasted until her death. During her first trip in I was working at the Bucci Gallery and we suggested the idea of doing a performance with her, with consisted of her drawing, with her foot, a heroic masculine figure, almost philo-fascist, and the figure of a woman.

The body was most important thing in her work: all of her work was a prosthesis. I wanted people to learn about her work because I understood its inherently disruptive element. So it was a wonderful surprise when Pedro Lemebel approached me. She was a German whose childhood had been in Chile in Punta Arenas, and she had as part of her imaginary the wind, the cold, and the local landscape.

View all posts. The Australian culture critic, author of over ten books, is one of the intellectuals dismantling the ways of thinking and producing knowledge today, in times which, he says, academia needs to reformulate language and strengthen the networks of fellowship in order to face a future that is as uncertain as it seems dark.

The shot pans out and we see a headless body: the head lies on a table next to the body; the head talks to the camera. This, in part, is how the Australian theoretician sees the future: the dislocation of knowledge, the disarming of preconceived ideas, the deconstruction of ways of understanding the body and knowledge; as well as forcing language to create different realities, beginning with their own.

They moved to the US more than 20 years ago, and now teach at the Faculty for Cultural Studies and Media Communication at the New School for Social Research, where they are known as one of the most interesting Marxist philosophers and essayists of recent decades. It is always framed as a story of a fall from grace. This changes a lot over time, and in part because the technics of extracting information out of human bodies changes.

I lived through the transition from analog to digital technics, so that was always of interest to me. What are the consequences for intellectual work of existing within this contradiction? Academic work has for a long time been in the service of state and capital. The particular functions change, however, as this is no longer industrial capitalism.

The demands now are much more fine-grained than they used to be. As the economy moved in the over-developed parts of the world from manufacturing to information business, the place of the university in that political economy changed a lot, and in some ways became very central in a way it was not before.

Its weirdly true of both technical and cultural commodification. The university is research and development for both. And like anywhere else, subject to the encroachment of algorithmic evaluation and all the rest. How can bridges be built between a university and the public space? We have to do the job as the job has been designed.

No individual scholar has all that much agency about how to do it differently. And these days younger scholars have practically no agency at all about how they get to work. But I think we can engage more with the question of the politics of knowledge. What are these specialized works supposed to be for? Do they accumulate and add up to something? Can they be connected in ways that are useful?

Are they supposed to contribute in their own specific ways to a better life? I come from a Marxist tradition where thus used to be a key problem. Nor is there a master-theory or discipline that can assign the roles and relevance to all the others. Those temptations are I think major obstacles. This was why, in Molecular Red I took an interest in Alexander Bogdanov who really was interested in what a kind of comradely relation between different kinds of knowledge, and between knowledge and practice could be.

In General Intellects , I was trying to apply that a bit, by showing how different kinds of inquiry can be put next to each other, in their differences, in productive ways. What subjects are most urgent to think about today, when climate change or the robotisation of work seem to foretell a dark future? That was why it seemed urgent to me to raise the project of a politics of knowledge. We urgently need collaborative and even comradely practices of relating different kinds of knowledge to each other, and not just across the humanities and qualitative social sciences.

General Intellects takes on that part. But it has to extend to the science and technical fields as well. How do you explain this? Or defeats in the plural. The latter of those is a whole other thing and in the end maybe of greatest world-historical significance. Whole new techniques of transnational production and distribution arose to route around militant workers and counter-hegemonic social movements.

The movements of the sixties had an element of embodied and social solidarity and the ruling class responded with a technics that routed around that. It was a defeat. The romance of it is disabling. I think we need a much broader sense of what liberation movements have attempted and why they lost, across a much wider swathe of history and geography.

Should there be some sort of an alliance between the world of ideas and politics in order to address this deficiency? Part of it is I think getting wedded to language that is often not thought about much and was not intentionally chosen.

Is this even capitalism any more or is it something worse? Is it a new mode of production based on extracting surplus information and controlling both the value chain and populations through surveillance? Has that given rise to additional kinds of class relation and class exploitation?

I think these at least have to be open questions. I think we scurry back to familiar language as a shortcut to doing a deeper intervention into the politics of knowledge. That is no longer sustainable. My challenge to Nick and Alex would be though: well if you want something more imaginative, then you have to be prepared to let go of received ideas and habits of language altogether rather than just modify them a bit. You can see it on Instagram at mckenziewark I just think this model of public intellectual as the white guy speaking for universality is dead and buried.

Nobody gets to be the master thinker anymore, who is a proxy for the Real. What we need is comradely knowledge production. I think Zizek was the sign of the passing of that model because he did it in a comic mode. Sartre was not a comedian. It still seemed viable, in his mass media age, to have a single mass media celebrity who was the conscience of the world. Well first time as tragedy, second time as farce. Zizek was the farce. Waking up means opening your eyes.

Leaving sleep behind and facing reality, the current context, the place we find ourselves in, and recognising ourselves in it. What follows could be the start of a new day. The light that comes through the window, the smell of fresh toast, the hint of coffee, the signs of a possible future. If Chile woke up then we have to assume that we opened our eyes together. That on the 18 th October the light came into our brains and that in there, in the explosion of neurones all our subjectivity, our memory, our experiences, created an image that made us mobilise ourselves.

Maybe the miserable pensions that our grandparents get, or the depressing state of our public education. Maybe the ridiculous concentration of privilege for a tiny minority, and the way that minority is constantly doing all it can to avoid paying its taxes.

Or the way that they steal from us when they take out water, our forests, our ocean, our minerals, establishing universities, schools, clinics and malls that leave us in penury and debt for life. Or perhaps it was the corruption scandals and the embezzlement among the army and the police.

Or the pathetic attempts to incriminate the Mapuche people.


Pedro Lemebel

Seller Rating:. Condition: New. No aceptamos pedidos con destino a Ceuta y Melilla. Seller Inventory More information about this seller Contact this seller 1. Published by Hueders, Santiago de Chile


Paul B. Preciado’s Chilean Obsession

Gradually he turned from art to transvestite makeup in which the burnt wings of his little homosexual heart blossomed. These books were published several years before Paul B. Preciado became one of the most important and radical gender theorists of recent decades. He explains that he came across Lorenza by chance in while he was teaching a course on exploring the politics of the body in artistic and literary practices in the post-dictatorship years in Spain.

Related Articles