46 Planet of the Arts / March 1997 pilgrim’s preamble There is the mystery of continuous creation and all that providence implies: the uncertainty of vision,the horror of the fixed, the dissolution of the present, the intricacy of beauty, the pressure of fecundity,the elusiveness of the free, and the flawed nature of perfection. + Annie Dillard Introduction & Methodology God is not dead; (s)he’s in techno-drag. The metaphysical is alive and well in cyberculture. Venture onto the net for five minutes and you can find no shortage of sites dedicated to the goddess or other quasi-mystical pursuits. Entered into this con- figuration are the alternating figurations of “goddess” and “cyborg.” The potential conflation. of gaia/goddess; gaia/cyborg illuminates the postmodern search for neo-numi- nosity. Gaia robed as cyborg might be god(dess). Intriguingly they are bound together beautifully and ironically by the prac- tically prophetic Donna Haraway in the often quoted last sen- tence of her Cyborg Manifesto - “Although both may be bound by the spiral dance, I'd rather be a cyborg than a goddess.”(Haraway, 1991) Which leads me to ask, why a cyborg and not a goddess? And how are they bound by the spiral dance? ‘ Informed by feminist theory, (contradictions and all) and through my own experience with both “belief” and “doubt,” | ground my theorizing in my personal search for a somewhat secular “epistemology of belief” which is not centred on a notion of “Truth.” | am trying to be answerable both to that ; which | have learned how to see, and to where | have come from. Ultimately my concerns are with embodiment and agency. What are the strategic possibilities of these mythic fig- urations for feminist subjectivity and environ- mentalism? With a nomadic irreverence (and a debt to Rosi Braidotti) | will borrow from psychoanalysis and a semiotics rooted in my own auto- biographic deconstruction, to explore the meanings and con- structions of gaias and techno-dolls. This essay is a textual choreography conflating the categories: goddess, gaia, ecofeminism, cyborg femi- nism and the spiral dance. Rather than a comprehen- sive examination of any one area, my dance card will be filled with the characters who animate these cate- gories, and while we will perhaps be dancing to differ- ent tunes — at least we will all be contained within the same metaphoric room of this essay. The geometry of these choreo- graphed configurations will encom- pass triangles, circles and spirals. There will not, however, be any straight line or square dancing. By necessity, | will be dancing for less time with some partners than others. There will however be other dances. As would be expected after a wild night of dancing, this text may contain elements of inebriated babble and may be somewhat breathless. Because | cannot resist the intense plea- sure which comes in making the word “fresh,” | will attempt to weave together a multi-layered discourse. | am looking, dancing, and refiguring. Dare | call upon a poetic license in the struggle to be poietic? Venus of Lespugue (front view) Signifcations of the Goddess — Bodies of Thought | begin my. dance with Jeff de Boer. At his exhibition - Articulation — in the hallowed halls of the Canadian Craft Museum, | once again encounter that familiar form. De Boer’s “Venus of Venus” looks just like the Willendorf version except she sports a little pair of Antennae. Formed from ceramics she is framed and enclosed by a bronze ellipse. The exhibition is a playful (but very slick and very precious) exploration of the boy-toys. Rockets, armour for cats and mice, the corporate Knights of the Round Table. His is a nostalgia for the days of chivalry along with old fashioned futurism in the form of 1950’s space paraphernalia. It doesn’t surprise me to learn from the exhibition catalogue that de Boer began his fascina- tions through his involvement with the society for creative anachronism. De Boer seems unaware of the feminist dis- courses around the bodies of goddesses. In the exhibition his venus appears once more, collaged with other drawings, (rockets, robots and a raygun inside a box labeled: “In case of Martian break glass”). Not quite a cyborg - she is a techno- doll. As de Boer himself pointed out during a CBC radio inter- view, (Gabereau, 1996) it is impossible to study art history without an encounter with the venus. Called forth from the realms of antiquity (by a ubiquitous piece of technology) — the glowing projection of a stony/fleshy ancient female form know as the Venus of Willendorf. Hewn out of rock or con- structed from ceramics, these ancient goddesses are them- selves objects of technology. Art among the other technological facts - weapons, her significance is contested. Since she cannot speak for herself we must examine the dis- courses she has generated. “Men have hewn out of rock and painted on the walls of caves freak-like figures ever since art began, and these have usually been considered idols or icons based on the human form but dis- torted for symbolic purposes. One of the most ancient and cele- ~ pee Te iWWV Dialectic brated is the so-called Willendorf Venus, a barely iconic mass of petrified female flesh, traditionally interpreted as a fertility symbol.” Thus writes Leslie Fiedler in his 1978 book on “Freaks.” While | will temporarily forgive Fiedler for his phallogocen- trism, it should be pointed out that recent evidence has attrib- uted the cave paintings to the hands of women who are also be credited with creating ceramics and protochemistry. (Thompson, 1996) Evidently women felt they had a goddess given right to play with technology. But is this fertility figure exactly what she seems? Fiedler adds that a scholarly article which appeared in 1973, contends that the Willendorf Venus portrays with almost clinical accuracy a typical freak, “[T]he victim of: diencephalendocrine obesity with parasymptomatic hyper- tonia, infertilityand libido-reduction.” Moreover, the author of the article goes on to argue,other monsters, long believed purely fantastic, may represent analogous attempts to rep- resent anomalies found only in aborted fetuses. (Fiedler, 1978) In a light speed leap from the stone age to the irony age, the figure attributed to fertility and the great mother may actually be a monstrous antithesis of the mother, neither sexual nor fecund. William Irwin Thompson, a self-confessed meta-historian, offers a more numinous explanation for the prevalence of strange proportions among the goddess figures. His is a vision of synthesis and wonder. “Since there is an implicit proportion of a canon here, and this canon does seem to be repeated in other statuary, it does suggest that, at the very least, more is going on here than a stone age taste for fat venuses.” (Thompson, 1996) He purports a relationship of phys- ical -proportions which corresponds to a musical system of proportions and tones, citing the work of musicologist Hans Keyser to support this idea. Thompson further analyzes the geom- etry of the goddess; intersections of cones, circles and of course - from whence we all came — the pubic trian- gle. The most unexpected observation he makes, however, is. that “on the back of the statue [Goddess of Lespugue] is the male genitalia as well as the female buttocks; there is a visual system of punning between buttocks, testicles and eggs.” (Thompson, 1996) Deliberately scattered amongst Thompson's texts are anomalies which are expressive of what he acknowl- edges as the paradox and complexity of the vast universe of multiple narra- tives over the body of the goddess. Yet he betrays his longing for an original symmetry. His “body as a metaphor of time” describes gendered time, ren- dered in stone, and in his dichotomiz- ing of the central mysteries as birth for the female, and death for the male, (the rising and dying phallus, the ever healing regenerating womb wound) he overlooks a factual detail; birth and death are central mysteries for both men and women. Women may once upon a time have lived their entire life spans as fertile people, but not any more. Not even half. Into this fearful symmetry, infertile and menopausal women, (let alone those who just choose not to do it, and those who are sexually hybrid for whatever reason), are all freaks, outside the dominant modes of signification. The politics of birth and death remain gendered and polarized. But to be fair to Thompson, he ends his tribute to the feminine principle with a description of a fig- urine of a woman from. Dolni Vestonice in Moravia. This is not the faceless head of the goddess but a por- trait of prehistory’s first “real person.” (Thompson, 1996) So who gives women the power to create? In the late sixties and early sev- enties many feminist artists took up the iconography of the goddess. They S oss ss are still around, but that aesthetic is not particularly in vogue in the art world. These days it’s hard to believe the image of the goddess was ever shocking. Her status as a commodity is enshrined in museum shops and witch supply stores across North America. But in 1969, when “God Gave Birth,” she was obscene. When the ground- Female / earth = eminence while male | machine = transcendence is the same dichotomy that lobotomizes the goddess. 00's canvas, 1969) is that it only replaces the divine western male with a divine western female. breaking painting by the Swedish artist Monica Sj66 was exhibited in London Sj66 came close to being arrested on obscenity and blasphemy charges. (Chadwick, 1990) Sj66 went on to become an outspoken feminist leader and author in the goddess spirituality movement. Her work and the work of many other artists who share her concerns provided an essen- tial validation of many of the women’s experiences which had been. negated in the past. (Men make art, women make babies.) This time women could make art and babies and even art about birthing. Critics, feminists among them weren't so sure. 3 After noting that goddess work has always been present within the realm of feminist art practices, feminist art histori- an Griselda Pollock acknowledges her own anxiety about the body of the mother represented by the goddess and cites this as a reason intellectuals have difficulty taking a critical posi- tion on it. (SHE TV interview, 1993) It doesn't help that Sj66 herself, and many of her cohorts are very anti- theory and fit the stereotype “essen- tialist” rather too well. The major criticism of “God Giving Birth,” is that it only replaces the divine western male with a divine western female, assuming a symmetry amongst the sexes that many would argue does not exist. “Bums, Guns and Puns.” writes feminist artist Jeanne Silverthorne at the end of her essay “The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Laughter.” Silverthornes’s version of the venus is made of rubber; headless, her flesh seems to be melting as she The major criticism of Monica God Giving Birth (oil on 46 Planet of the Arts / March 1997 rims preamble Theres the mystery of continuous creation an al that providence imps the uncertainty of vison the hortor Of the fixed, the dissolution ofthe present, the intricacy ‘of beauty, the pressure of fecundiythe elusveness of the fe, and the flawed nature of perfection “Annie Dillard Introduction & Methodology Godinot dad: hes in techno drag. Th metaphysical ave and vel omectate ety setae oe tia Tintern you con tena shortage ose Gasca ote rude or ther ques pul Emered nto his co uration ore te streatiag figurations of “yoscens sod Le paca nen ane ere aacoraihaniate th pode ea ta hee teat cal ebed ae eer nage be uouden) ongun they are the tog Cen end oneal ty epee Sabine coealierie eae terest oce tenes Of het Coon Maniory © cancun both. may be tot te eyal ates eae are sepa Saddess“Cloraway 191), Which leach me 62 ade why Sean ames aware and ee atdance? Informed by femipta wony, onracicions and ald ane ‘seu ep ernest cca Tota eyes ee ees soe Pape pel elite ea Tir of uth taps yep be srewurce Botta rat cre elas tens se, eel emir Lae ce Semall echt poles y etcteaee Seager ti oslo peace ees orritas Catone fer fon siete andere See (onda de to Ros Braet) Tl Sorrow rom pychoanaiyss and te Se aa Bopaphic decmesicions to rere eee ges, eae teinedals, This exy 6 2 textual ee teapots Godes, gale eee rs Peas oe cee stro aa Seas ithed hin the characte peel oes cote wie neal Shey ba arena ate Sates a fae we la scanner cues reece roouer Sune reey THnge ey al eee Hr es pee geen Walle howe: by sy 3 oat im or sure dang. By ee ea ee coven ee ame a Gee eee be ote uae fa ll oe expeced ea a a gf anc hating ent corner se ee eet eee soporte eatiee ea et es cr ene st iach See intetig ic ee! ete | Seriya as ewe aera eae Prahran ne sugges bepaaer rent wee) Signifcations of the Goddess - Bodies of Thought [begin my dance with Jeff de Boer. At his exhibition ‘Articulation ~ in the hallowed halls of the Canadian craft Museum, I once again encounter that familar form. De Boers "Venus of Venus" looks just like the Willendorf version except she sports alittle pair of Antennae. Formed from ceramics she is framed and enclosed by a bronze ellipse. The exhibition isa playful (but very slick and very precious) exploration of the. boy-toys. Rockets, armour for cats and mice, the corporate Knights of the Round Table. Hiss a nostalgia for the days of Chivalry along with old fashioned futurism in the form of 1950's space paraphernalia. I doesn't surprise me to learn {rom the exhibition catalogue that de Boer began his fascina tions through his involvement with the society for creative anachronism. De Boer seems unaware of the feminist dis Courses around the bodies of goddesses. In the exhibition his venus appears once more, collaged with other drawings, (ockets, robots and a rayguin inside a box labeled “Incase of Martian break glass"). Not quite a cyborg ~ she isa techno- dol. ‘As de Boer himself pointed out during a CBC radio inter- view, (Gabereau, 1996) itis impossible to study art history without an encounter with the venus. Called forth from the Fealms of antiquity (by a ubiquitous piece of technology) — the ‘lowing projection of a stonyifishy ancient female form Know a the Venus of Willendort. Hewn out of rock or con: structed from ceramics, these ancient goddesses are them- selves objects of technology. Art among. the other technological facts ~ weapons, her significance is contested Since she cannot speak for herself we must examine the dis ‘courses she has generated. "in have en xt fock and ped on the was of caves freakke foes ever sce at bgan. 2nd these have ws) cen cone os ot kane sad onthe human es but terted for mba prpases One ofthe mos ae a (WW Dialectic galas and brates the socalled Wien Vers, a Brey nic mas of piled Yomi sh, woconsly nected a3 ety Thus writes Leslie Fiedler in his 1978 book on “Freaks.” While | will temporarily forgive Fiedler for his phallogocen- tris, it should be pointed out that recent evidence has ttib- Lted the cave paintings to the hands of women who are aso be credited with creating ceramics. and. protochemisry (Thompson, 1996) Evidently women felt they had a goddess siven right to play with technology But is this fertility figure exactly what she seems? Fiedler adds that a scholarly article ‘which appeared in 1973, contends thatthe Willendort Venus. [portrays with almost clinical accuracy a typical freak, “sewn of decepledocrne obesy with parapet hype ton, nfertiyand Recto Noro the author ofthe ale gre on fo aquedter Mons, ong televed pur fanaste, moy epee arog ates ep tesentanomates found ony bored fees: ee 1978) Female | earth = eminence while male | machine = transcendence is the breaking painting by the Swedish artist Monica 5j60 was ‘exhibited in London sj00 came close to being arrested on ‘obscenity and blasphemy charges. (Chadwick, 1950) 5160 went fn to become an outspoken feminist leader and author in the ‘Goddess spirituality movement. Her work and the work of ‘many other artists who share her concerns provided an essen- ‘tal validation of many of the women’s experiences which had been negated in the past. (Men make art, women make babies) This ime women could make art and babies and even art about birthing. Critics, feminists among them weren't s0 After noting that goddess work has always been present within the realm of feminist art practices, feminist ar histor ‘an Griselda Pollock acknowledges her ‘own anxiety about the body of the mother represented by the goddess and cites this as a reason intellectuals have difficulty taking a critical posi tion on it. (SHE TV intervew.1993) It doesn't help that 5j00 herself, and many of her cohorts are very anti: some age to he tony ape the SMe dichotomy that Te Mie on acs he oe figure attributed to fertility and iz criticism of "God Giving Birth,” is that tieorentmetter oy acuahy be fOBOtomizes the goddess, {ancl God Ging ah at ‘monstrous antithesis of the ‘mothe, neither sexual nor fecund, Wiliam Irwin Thompson, a selfconfessed meta-hstorian, offers a more numinous explanation for the prevalence of Strange proportions among the goddess figures. His fa vision ‘of synthesis and wonder Sine thre isan phot proportion of 3 canon here, ad ths ‘aon dessa tobe repeated ee Stn, foe sige that tthe very least mae & 939 09 hee than a stone age taste for fot eset Champs, 1956), He purports a relationship of phys- ‘cal proportions which corresponds to ‘2 musical system of proportions and, Tones, citing the work of musicologist Hans Keyser to support ths idea, ‘Thompson further analyzes the geom etry of the goddess: intersections of ones, cries and of course ~ from whence we all came ~ the pubic tian. Sle. The most unexpected observation fhe makes, however, is that “on the back of the statue [Goddess of Lespuguel is the male genitalia as well asthe female buttocks there isa visual System of punning between buttocks, testicles and eggs.” (Thompson, 1996) Deliberately scattered amongst ‘Thompson's texts are anomalies which are expressive of what he acknowl fedges a5 the paradox and complexity ‘of the vast universe of multiple nara tives over the Body ofthe goddess. Yet hhe betrays his longing for an original symmetry. His “body as a metaphor of time” describes. gendered time, ren: ered in stone, and in his dichotomiz ing of the central mysteries as birth for the female, and death for the male, (the rising and dying phallus, the ever healing regenerating. womb wound) he overlooks a factual detal birth and death are central mysteries for both men and women. Women may once Upon atime have lived thei entire ie spans as fertile people, but not any more. Not even half. nto this fearful symmetry, infertile and menopausal women, {let atone those who just choose not to doit, and those who are Sexually hybrid for whatever reason), are all freaks, outside the dominant ‘modes of signification. The politics of birth and death remain gendered and polarized. But to be fair to Thompson, hhe ends his tribute to the feminine principle with a description of a fig- Urine’ of a woman” from Dolni Vestonie in Moravia. This is not the faceless head ofthe goddess but apor- trait of prehistory fist “real person.” (Thompson, 1996) 'o who gives women the power to create? in the late sities and early sev enties many feminist artists took up ‘the iconography of the goddess. They ae still round, but that aesthetic is hot particularly in vogue in the art ‘world These days is hard to believe the image of the goddess was ever shocking. Her status as a commodity is ‘enshrined in museum shops and witch Supply stores across North America But in 1969, when “God Gave Birth” she was obscene. When the ground: male with a divine western female, ‘assuming a symmetry amongst. the sexes that many would argue does not exist. “Bums, Guns and Puns.” writes feminist artist Jeanne Silverthorne atthe end of hr essay “The Revolutionary Power ‘of Women's Laughter.” Siverthornes's version of the venus i made of rubber; eadiss, he flesh seems to be melting as she The major criticism of Monica Sj66’s God Giving Birth (oil on canvas, 1969) is that it only replaces the divine western male with a divine western female.