Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 23:21:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Judith Frederika Rodenbeck <jfr10-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Potlach



On Mon, 18 Apr 1994, is0sls wrote:

> A comment on Judith's idea of "AN IMMEDIATIST POTLACH".

It's not my idea, although it could be. The radio sermonette is from a
pamphlet put out by the Moorish Orthodox Radio Crusade, whose collective
is theere listed as (for those interested): Peter Lamborn Wilson, The Army
of Smiths (Dave, Sidney, Max), Hakim Bey, Jake Rabinowitz, Thom Metzger,
Dave Mandl, James Koehnline. I transcribed it because I wanted to toss out
the idea of carnival or potlatch or dinner party to the TAZ discussion, 
and because the pamphlet is ephemera which I very much doubt many people 
have access to. Then again, maybe I just like presents. 

> In general I like the idea, although it is nothing new. In Paris the surrealist
> Andre Bernard does something of this sort every year.

You're right: it isn't new (to the art world). George Maciunas did a
similar yearly event. It would be possible to think of some of the
Surrealist exhibitions as potlatches, especially given Meret Oppenheim's
nudie table (and the exquisite corpse), on the one hand, or Bataille's
economics, on the other. There's also, for a slightly different tack on
the gift and gift economies, Lewis Hyde's wonderful book (The Gift). 

Have you been to any of Bernard's events? Could/would you describe one?

> BUT the implication of a surrealist theme evening suggests to me that everyone
> PRETENDS for an evening to be surrealist. This would be totally against the
> spirit of surrealism, reducing it to an amusement at the most. I would like to
> think, Judith, that this is not quite what you meant...is it?
 
No, it's not at all what I meant... especially as I didn't write the
sermonette. And you're quite right:  the danger (if we can call it that)
of pretense is vast. That's why the sermonette is printed in the form of
rules which say, basically, the point is to achieve momentary
(evening-long, event-long) fabulosity, to be a flaming creature (in the
Jack Smith, not the 'net, sense). Or that's how I read it: as a guide or
ground for a kind of collaborative deep play. 

So the naive questions are: Why the hold of potlatch on the imagination? 
And what about a socius punctuated by what Beast of Eden called "giving
and destruction" together? What other kinds of "giving and destruction" 
act as social binders? What does food do socially? Can a meal be
political? Is "face" a useful liberatory term? I have my own perverse 
notions, but I was wondering who else is out here. 

-fido

     ------------------