This entry is part of the pilot project Do It Yourself! Queering the Archive. For more information and general questions about the project, I refer you to the introduction page.
[Block type "header" not found]
In Hermaphodite (Renais sense) (1972), Ulay presents himself as his “hybrid-genderd alter ego” Renais Sense. He explores “the idea of a unification between male and female, symbolically becoming a hermaphrodite.” The work was inspired by the trans and gender nonconforming communities Ulay engaged with during the 1970s and reflects on the fluidity of identity and embodiment. As seen on mediakunst.net, the current description of this film uses terms such as “transvestite” and “transsexual”. This raises questions about how to handle historical terminology in archival contexts. Furthermore, the work is currently not coded with any keywords, subjects, or genre codes.
[Block type "header" not found]
How can metadata reflect the fluidity of queerness and gender? How do we preserve the language of the time without reproducing harm or erasing history? How do we deal with dated descriptions? Should historical terms be retained with contextual notes, replaced with contemporary ones, or left as they are? How do we describe a work as “queer” when the artist does not explicitly claim that identity? What keywords (1-3 words) would you use to describe this work?
For any comments, questions or concerns that you would rather discuss privately, you can reach me at clairevandenbroek@li-ma.nl
Comments
Some keywords that come to mind: Gender identity, Genderqueer, Embodiment, Hybridity, Body art, Auto-portraiture I also came across this resource from the Trans Metadata Collective, on best practices for trans and gender diverse resources: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=librarians As well as this on critical and reparative metadata: https://libguides.wustl.edu/Critical_Metadata/FAQ
I think acknowledging the terminology of the time is imperative. As much as considering the impacts of reproducing harm I think applying 'modern' terminology retroactively has its own problems. Queerness functions differently and as a result labels take on new meanings, they themselves are contextually grounded. To me, I almost feel a greater connection to queer history when it is understood within the language of the time. So I think providing contextual notes would be appropriate. That being said, I think that labelling that which deals with the 'sexually subversive', or directly engages in a form of intelligible queerness, as 'queer'; one can acknowledge disparate identity claims (or labels) while tying a clear (modern) thread around it.