viz.
Visual Rhetoric - Visual Culture - Pedagogy
Site informationRecent Blog Posts
|
Reply to commentReplyYour contribution to the blog: Please Read Before PostingThe viz. blog is a forum for exploring the visual through identifying the connections between theory, rhetorical practice, popular culture, and the classroom. Keeping with this mission, comments on the blog should further discussion in the viz. community by extending (or critiquing) existing analysis, adding new analysis, providing interesting and relevant examples, or by making connections between that topic and theory, rhetoric, culture, or pedagogy. Trolling, spam, and any other messages not related to this purpose will be deleted immediately. Comments by anonymous users will be added to a moderation queue and examined for their relevance before publication. Authenticated users may post comments without moderation, but if those comments do not fit the above description they may be deleted. |
TagsRecent comments
|
abjection
I think it's really important to consider, when thinking about the differences between camp and satire, the role of the abject. Satire is meant to critique, obvs. Camp does similar work but also tends to come from a position of abjection--the critic is abject in this case, so the critique becomes both serious and not serious. Thinking of camp this way also takes some of the interpretive pressure off the form/content question and reframes it in terms of the way that the text cultivates an engagement with the audience, or conversely the way the audience engages with the text, which may be campy in some contexts and not in others. I think, ultimately, that camp is both ironic and not at the same time, which is why it's so interesting in terms of political affect. --HH