I’ve found this really nice story in varnelis blog
“There’s a photo of a guy who got tattoos to match those found on Otzi, aka The Iceman, who died more than 5,000 years ago in the Italian Alps. Mike Goldstein, the guy who got the tattoo, said the series of 10 simple lines arranged in groups of four, three, and three served to remind him that you don’t have to be incredibly important during your lifetime in order to be important. “It reminds me that I can live however I want,” he says in the book. “I don’t have to work in an office or wear a tie, as are the expectations of our culture. I can walk across the Alps and die in a swamp, and that’s OK.””- Boing Boing (via heterochronia)
It made me remember this interview to Pedro Almodóvar in which he explains how pop culture in the sixties allowed turning anything in art. In his case, as he was grown up surrounded by significant female figures, he made housewifes the central figure of his art.
I pointed it out some weeks ago to Jesus Olivares in a conversation about what could be his Master’s thesis theme. Then I told him that there are two main “objects” in a research: the “theoretical affairs” you want to talk around and the “topics” you want to talk about, and you link them with methodological research tools. I also told him that is important to choose “paradigmatic topics” because they’ll have better impact, but then I went back my own word and remembered this video… I did that because I felt I was telling him the exact contrary of what I do: I normally work around “theoretical affairs” I’m fascinated with, I missuse them as if they were methodological tools to research about a topic that anyone else but me cares of… Nevertheless, I enjoy it and that guy with copied tattoos from a John Iceman Doe has made me think that it’s not so mad, because it’s more important what you have to say than what concrete thing you talk about.
But I do think I’d enjoy more if I put some order on it: “theoretical affairs” as actor-network theory, mostly as explained by Tim Ingold (anthropologic view), and cyborg, mostly from Donna Haraway (situated knowledges) and cyberpunk narrative and entrepreneurship (propositive and resilient); used to talk about domestic technologies. Linking them should be the methodological tools, and I’m a bit dispersed here. Till now I’ve found out the potential of techno-imaginaries (storytelling and myths), and I’m willing to do some prototyping. I expect to discover some more (in fact, many of Tim Ingold concepts can be used as tools themselves) not forgetting that the concrete topic you talk about shapes the methodological tools you use, Kathleen McHugh expresses it well in her book American Domesticity:
A recurrent tendency of domestic discourse produced by women, from Lydia Child to Chantal Akerman, is to use housekeeping as a strategy, a form, an aesthetic, and a method and my text is no exception
And another quote that remarks that topics should prevail formally upon “theoretical affairs”:
Theory is like underwear. It should be worn inside, not outside.