The Politics and Poetics of Foreplay Palladini

7/28/2019 The Politics and Poetics of Foreplay Palladini

1/10

Access Provided by Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preussischer Kulturbesitz at 12/06/12 3:13PM GMT


2/10

95DR: Te Drama Review 56:4 (216) Winter 2012. 2012

New York University and the Massachusetts Institute of echnology

owards an Idle TeatreTe Politics and Poetics of Foreplay

Giulia Palladini

There is a woman who every payday, ater nishing work, takes a train to Coney Island, reachesthe amusement park, and positions hersel on a breeze-hole, in the un-wax house. She wearsa skirt, which spreads widely around her body when hit by the air coming rom below. Her

name is Hannah and she devotes her spare time to the breeze-hole, partly playing or herselthe amous skirt-blowing scene rom Billy Wilders The Seven Year Itch, partly just enjoying theeeling o the breeze on her naked legs.

This is herpass-time.

Not ar rom her, in the unhouse, there is a young, muscular boy whose name is Arizona.He also goes to Coney Island almost every day in his spare time. His pass-time is positioninghimsel in ront o the mirror maze and seeing his own image reproduced time and again on themirroring walls as a sort o narcissistic hallucination.

Hannah and Arizona are alone, alongside each other in their solitary pass-times, accidentallyexposed to each other, to someone elses amusement. They occupy a precarious space in the

unhouse. It is conceived as a place to walk through but they loiter and over-stay, with no pur-pose other than their own enjoyment the physical pleasure o the activity itsel and the plea-sure o imagining a picture o themselves in the scene they themselves set up.

The time o their enjoyment their pastimes somehow denes this space in the amuse-ment park as temporarily theirs, even though they inhabit the space with no thought o prop-erty. They own only the time o their childish enjoyment, an enjoyment that appears as aspectacle rom the outside. At the end o the day, the voice o the barker advertising the manyattractions o the unhouse or a paying audience announces among its attractions Hannahs and

Arizonas pass-times:

VOICE OF THE BARKER: See How Rome Burned While Nero Played, see Lovely

Marie Antoinette at the Guillotine, see Why Hannas Skirt Wont Stay Down [...] Andsee our new attraction, Smiley, The Smiling Narcissistic Wonder, Trapped in the Mirror

Maze. (Eyen [1971] 1977:2930)

This scene is pivotal in the playWhy Hannas Skirt Wont Stay Down, written and directed byTom Eyen and perormed at La Mama Experimental Theatre Club in 1965. To this day it is oneo the plays most aectionately attached to the history o La Mama, as well as to the legendary

Giulia Palladini is a post-doctoral researcher and curator in perormance studies. She is currently an

Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation ellow at the University o Erurt, Germany. She has published

in several international journals includingContemporary Teatre Review, South Atlantic Review,

ArtO_cultura e politica delle arti sceniche, andCulture eatrali. She is currently completing her frst

monograph on the 1960s New York underground scene (orthcoming rom University o Michigan Press).

[email protected]


3/10

GiuliaPalladini

96

narrative o the O-O-Broadway scene o 1960s New York. I am oering this scene to you, ina sense, as a prologue to my argument. Eyens characters, their mode o perorming or them-selves and or others, the specic temporality o their scenes, are called upon to conjure a pecu-liar mode o perormance, which I shall reer to asoreplay.

I proposeoreplay as a notion to describe amateur theatre labor both or the temporality and

sensibility o the term. I am interested in the relation o amateur labor to love, which is etymo-logically the orce the desire, the pleasure that drives the amateur laborer to pursue theactivity without compensation. I am also interested in the amateurs position in the social sys-tem o theatre production, a system that does not recognize amateur labor as labor, but might

Figure 1. Steven Davis and Hellen Hanft in Why Hannas Skirt Wont Stay Down, La Mama

Experimental Teatre Club, June 1970. (Courtesy of La Mama Archive/Ellen Stewart Private Collection)


4/10

Towardsa

nIdleTheatre

97

subsequently prot rom the wageless conditions in which it is produced in the rst place as a

pass-time, hence welcoming and arming a process o sel-exploitation on the amateur labor-ers part.

I employ the word laborhere in the sense o Marxs early writings, in which labor reers toall orms o human doing, not only and not directly those contributing to an economic out-

come. Likewise, I employ an expanded notion o theatreproduction, using the latter term to reerto a process encompassing all stages o circulation and exchange o the (theatre) commodity. Iinclude consumption as a undamental stage o the production process insoar as it actualizes asproduct that which in earlier stages o the process existed onlyin potentia.

Recouping these expanded notions o labor and production is crucial or a number o rea-sons, as an important strand o eminist critique has clearly spelled out in relation to reproduc-tion or housework (Federici 1975; Waring 1988; Dalla Costa 1999). First, such an expansioncan account or non-monetized activity such as amateur theatre, an underrecognized ormo labor producing value that exceeds monetary exchange as the main measure o productiv-ity. Secondly, it points to a undamental eature o theatre production: its enactment in a publicsphere, with its constitutive dependence on audience consumption or the production o value.

In line with the detailed analysis o the labor o consumption developed by Miranda Joseph, Itoo hold that the work o the audience, their productive consumption o the [perormance]

work, their act o witness participates in the production o exchange value under any circum-stance, especially i we understand exchange value as a distinctive discursive articulation, helpingto dene beyond direct monetary trade the ontological status and social identity o the the-atre labor witnessed by the audience (2002:66). As Marx made clear, in all processes o produc-tion, consumption retrospectively grants an ontological status to the product itsel or moreprecisely, it brings to completion what the product o labor aspired to be in the very rst place:

A railway on which no trains run, hence which is not used up, not consumed, is a rail-way onlydunamei[potentially], and not in reality. [...] Consumption produces production

in a double way, (1) because a product becomes a real product only by being consumed.[...T]hus the product, unlike any mere natural object, proves itsel to be, becomes, a prod-uct only through consumption; (2) because consumption creates the need or new pro-duction, that is, creates the ideal, internally impelled cause or production. (1973:91)

Foreplay and Time

In the Oxord English Dictionary, the wordoreplay eatures as an entry under the prexore,and it is dened as: stimulation or love-play preceding sexual intercourse.1 According to the

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, oreplay is also any action or behavior that precedes an event 2:the nature o the event whose advent oreplay announces and prepares is not clearly specied.By its own denition, however, oreplay appears as a slippery territory ocrescendo that cannotclaim the status o an arrival. By its very nature, oreplay reuses to be its own stable signier:its very unction is attested retrospectively, as i only a uture occurrence intercourse werein act entrusted to open the proper time o the activity itsel. Indeed, like the railway whereno train yet runs, oreplay is a labor o desire projected towards completion, towards the possi-bility o consummation, without necessarily the guarantee o arrival. The concept o oreplay,however, inhabits a paradox: the event that might possibly bestow its ontological status onthe oreplay is precisely that which would put an end to oreplay as such. In other words, i theaccomplishment o oreplay is what justies its temporality o deerral (along with the pleasureaccumulated throughout its duration), the event, then, is both oreplays end in terms o its pur-pose and its end in terms o duration.

1. Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. foreplay. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 27.

2.Merriam-Webster Dictionaryonline version. foreplay. www.merriam-webster.com/ (23 November 2011).


5/10

GiuliaPalladini

98

3. For a more detailed analysis of the economy of attention in which the theatre commodity is produced and con-

sumed, see Palladini (2011:5977).

I am borrowing the paradox haunting the ontological status o oreplay to reer to the con-dition o many theatre artists, who remain amateurs insoar as the product o their theatrelabor has not achieved the status o event in a specic economy o attention, remuneration, rec-ognition. That is, until the productive consumption o an audience values it to be o use; tobe recognizable as exchangeable i not yet exchanged. The amateur theatre laborI am reer-ring to, thereore, is not a leisure activity or an ater-work diversion, already granted a place inthe time regime o capitalist leisure. It is a practice oten taking place ater work hours simplybecause it is not itsel a sucient source o livelihood. Artists are busy with their practices dur-ingree time because unpaid theatre labor does not count as ones business i unremunerated,no matter how busy one may be with it. Many unpaid theatre artists, however, carry on theirloves labor in the hope o one day transorming that labor o love into their primary means osupport. This particular quality o amateur theatre production can thereore be considered adistinctive orm o preparation: a preliminary activity (o unknown duration) that does not per-ceive or present itsel as propaedeutic, but which already participates in the production processand is projected towards a horizon o evaluation. This is the moment at which it will be con-summated by catching the attention o an audience who might oer it the chance to be consid-

ered proper theatre.We could posit proper theatre as one which, to quote Nicholas Ridout, knows its own his-

tory, claims its place in the discourses o the arts, while acknowledging, with more or less goodgrace, its position in the economies o capitalist leisure (2006:6). A theatre in which orinstance a ticket is paid or in advance, granting (rst o all economically) a proessional sta-tus to the event, and where this purchase denes the domain o the encounter happening as theresult o the agreement implied by the purchased good: the time o perormance. This time,accordingly, is subject to a system o property rights: spectators purchase the chance to occupya public space or a certain time span, as well as the opportunity to pay attention to the orth-coming event, which is considered in advance worth attending, worthy o attention. The pri-

vate, proper attention o spectators, when sitting in a theatre seat rented or a certain amount o

time, is accordingly expected to be laboredor: in order to get the pleasure o the event paid orup ront, spectators will share the working hours o perormers, oering in exchange the privateproperty o their leisure a time dened by the contours o both temporal and purposive ends.

Another name or this sort o amateur labor, especially in relation to the market o perorm-ing arts (understood, as Joseph proposes, not merely in economic terms but as a market-status[2002:42]), is precarious labor. Even when amateur theatre labor is in act consummated succeeds in catching the attention o an audience and hence has the chance to be put to use (bybeing perormed in a proper theatre, by participating in a estival, or by acquiring temporaryunding or development as a so call theatre pro-ject), consumption creates the need or newproduction, that is creates the ideal, internally impelled cause or production (Marx 1973:91).

Ater having even temporarily entered a market that we could call a market o attention,3 ama-

teur labor is thereore projected into a new production horizon, towards which the laborerwill now direct hersel in order to maintain (or to create anew) the conditions or her labor toendure. In other words, participating in a market o attention, the amateur theatre laborer mustinhabit a precarious status similar to that o oreplay, anticipating a potential recognition o herpractice as labor in a specic politics oproducing the event.

However, just like oreplay, precarious labor can possibly disavow its implication in a teleo-logical end rom within the production system in which, necessarily, it is embedded, sustainingthe pleasure o its doing as labor hence establishing a struggle with the temporality con-structed by the deadlines o nality. Just like in oreplay, what supports the doing o precari-ous labor can always be pleasure rather than nality, even i its time is always already projected


6/10

Towardsa

nIdleTheatre

99

4. I employ the notion of persistence in the acceptation proposed by Boyan Manchev (2011).

towards a horizon o productivity. The sort o resistance that a precarious laborer can perormis a resistance o the conditions o production that are given as the presupposition o a desiredrealization o her labor in something achieved, something produced, something consumable. Shecan resist this realization o her labor, I suggest, bymaking love to her own time making timeitsel her lover, as it were.

Towards a Labor of Idleness

What I propose as a poetics o oreplay is a particular temporality o perormance, whichalthough structurally projected orward in time towards the horizon o its consumption,chooses instead to deer its own accomplishment. The enjoyment o the act reproduces thepossibility o its persistence.4 The politics o oreplay is the potential to exceed, by means oenduring pleasure, the time regime o a productive economic system, the temporality o dead-lines and potential opportunities predicating an agenda o nality on the amateur labor. Ina theatre o oreplay an amateur theatre predicated on love without recognition, achieve-ment, status experiments in alternative uses or the accumulation o pleasure during peror-mance making recongure the specic mode o production, as well as the labor that produces

the pleasure. In other words, resistance to productivity within the system o production mightcome rom actions that deer achievement, that enable precarious labor to endure by means oits love drive, and that seek to protect this love rom the internally impelled cause or newproduction (Marx 1973:91). The love endures by means o an attitude towards time that dis-avows the summons to become an event, articulating a dierent (shall we call itautonomous?)duration or labor itsel.

We shall describe this attitude in terms oidleness, and posit this notion as something radi-cally dierent rom leisure, insoar as it is not conceived in a dialectical relation with the timeregime regulating work in the system o productivity. The notion o idleness I am calling uponhere draws upon Walter Benjamin, in particular in his Arcades Project, the never-completed col-lection o notes and quotations assembled rom 1927 to his death in 1940, a period, it shouldbe noted, in which the philosopher conronted a severe and prolonged condition o unemploy-ment. The book itsel can be considered in terms o amateur labor or as a peculiar orm o ore-play: a sustained and undervalued promise o completion that accompanied the philosopheruntil the very last moment o his lie.

In The Arcades Project, Benjamin devotes a short section o the convolute m to the notion oMssiggang(idleness), and pinpoints some crucial eatures that mark idleness as dierent romleisure. He writes: Idleness seeks to avoid any sort o tie with the idlers line o work, and ulti-mately to the labor process in general. That distinguishes it rom leisure (1999:803). Whereasthe very idea o leisure in modernity necessarily relies on the organizational demarcations o

work-time, Benjamin looks at idleness as an attitude and praxis o an unlimited duration, which

undamentally distinguishes it rom simple sensuous pleasure o whatever variety (806).Although prooundly connected with the capitalist economic order in which, over time, it

fourishes, idleness or Benjamin is not simply the last outpost o a disappeared proper leisure;it is rather a peculiar orm o engagement with activity. Hence, it is not a condition dened bythe absence o labor, but rather a scenario enabling and temporarily hosting orms o labor not

yet recognized or allowed as proper.

The German wordMssiggangis etymologically and conceptually complex, and it is worthobserving it closely in order to better understand howidlenessmay be dierentiated rom lazi-ness, as well as rom sheer inactivity.Mssiggangis produced by the conjunction between die

Mue leisure and Gang, literally reerring to the practice o walking, passing, and directly


7/10

GiuliaPalladini

100

echoing the habit o the fneur so prominent in the constellation o idle gures sketched outin The Arcades Project. Secondly,Mssiggangstems rom the same linguistic root o the wordduty das Mss almost to suggest that idleness itsel is generated rom duty; or, alterna-tively, that it might be a praxis pregnant with necessity, regardless o whether the idle laborwilleventuallygive birth.

There is thereore an ambivalence embedded in the idea o idleness, which doubles theambivalent status o precarious labor. The improper, apparently inoperative labor o the idlermay well be regarded as perectly unctional in relation to the exploitation process at work inthe domain o busy-ness, especially in the context o the neoliberal economy in which the cat-egory o what can be considered in terms o labor is continuously shiting. In other words,another way to look at idleness could be as the theatrical mask o precarious labor, sheer reetime oering itsel to be appropriated and retrospectively evaluated as such, in an always-orthcoming capitalist economic system. Benjamin already recognized this process in specicinstances o his own culture, as well as in the culture o the late 19th century he analyzed sothoroughly: there are two social institutions o which idlenessorms an integral part: the newsservice and nightlie. They require a specic orm owork-preparedness. This specic orm is

idleness(1999:802). This work-preparedness or potential or work in a sense haunts idleness,as much as the potentiality o consumption haunts the duration o oreplay. On the other hand,though, as in much oreplay, this very work-preparedness could resist its own tendency to over-lap with both work-expectation, and simple exhaustion. In this preparedness, in act, idleness isalso the precondition or resistingproper orms o work in the present, and proposing a dierentduration or labor itsel, outside o a time-oriented sequence in the production process.

The potential in idleness or resistance doesnt lie in denying its ambivalent status o work-preparedness. Rather, it rests in the capacity o nourishing amateur labor with an enjoymentthat is somehow orgetul o the seeming duty haunting its nality, its drive to production.

A useul insight to better describe this sort o attitude is oered again by Benjamin, eaturedin a sets o notes composed during roughly the same period as but not included in The Arcades

Project: the writings documenting his experiences with hashish and mescaline. In one o thosetexts (also called protocols), composed in May 1934 ater an experiment with drugs super-

vised by the doctor Fritz Frnkel in Paris, Benjamin notes down some refections on the verbSumen, literally meaning to linger on, to loiter, to dawdle, and connected by Benjamin to a spe-cic attitude o childrens activities. The best part o childrens happiness, Benjamin writes, is itsSaumseligkeit, that is: an absolute absence o hurry (2006).

This peculiar sense or attitude towards time, which Benjamin describes as a sort o unrav-eling o experience, is considered as proper to childhood insoar as the latter can be regardedas a lie period not directly embedded in the time regime o adult productivity even i it isprojected towards adulthood in a developmental conception o lie. Upon closer observation,

however, this time sense can also be compared to the temporality at stake in certain acts o love-making: an absolute absence o hurry, in act, can characterize the enjoyment o gestures thatare both implicated in, yet somehow also avoid the teleology o a merelyproductive desire.

Making love to ones own time, thereore, means to allow precarious labor to persist in itsnature as an act o love, proceeding in an absolute absence o hurry and thus resisting the com-pelling impulse o becoming event ostered by the economy o attention which might other-

wise appear to enable its very existence.

By proposing the notion o oreplay as a loving subversion o the time regime o capitalistproduction as well as proessional theatre production, I am conjuring an attitude towards the-atre labor that is not directly related to a specic technique, but it is instead a matter o tem-porality and sensibility. Reclaiming the possibility o such an attitude seems particularly urgent

in the contemporary context o the neoliberal economy, which constantly prots rom a so-called time fexibility on the workers part, including the availability oree time as a boundlessresource o labor power.


8/10

Towardsa

nIdleTheatre

101

The undamental conditions o production in which theatre labor takes place, however,cannot be considered entirely new; likewise, the sort o amateur theatre labor I have reerredto, while not entitled to claim its place in the discourses o the arts (Ridout 2006:6) hasmany precedents in the history o perorming arts. Foreplay can thus also be understood rel-ative to another temporal sense present in its two words ore andplay as a play that tookplace beore. This attitude towards time has many precedents in the theatre. We can considerexperiments by a number o artists who, over the courses o their lives, struggled to make thepleasure in their theatre-making endure, even though their labor was never recognized in acapitalist economy o attention or in a system o direct remuneration.

Among such artists, there is one in particular whose theatre practice seems to stand as adenitive example o the sort o resistance that precarious labor might perorm by means odeploying a mode o alternative temporality. This artist, we might suggest, developed a peculiarmode o making love to his own time, and invited spectators to join this love making by exper-imenting with a peculiar sort o idle consumption in the unraveling o an act o extended wit-nessing. That theatre artist is Jack Smith.

I would like to suggest that the peculiar idleness that characterized Jack Smiths theatre

practice ound a somehow direct equivalent in the activity o spectators participating in thespecic economy o attention ostered by his work. Rather than oering an analysis o a specicperormance, I will entrust the task o describing this temporality to the writing o a particularspectator o Smiths work, who in a sense might be considered to have experimented with adistinctive orm o oreplay writing in relation to the reception o the 1960s and 1970s under-ground perormances. That theatre spectator is Stean Brecht.

In 1978 Brecht published a collection o texts entitled Queer Theatre intended to be the sec-ond volume o the ambitious and never accomplished series o books devoted to theatre experi-ments in the New York downtown art scene. These texts constitute an extremely precise surveyas well as a very personal account o Brechts own participation in and enjoyment o these per-

ormances. Brecht writes about Smiths midnight series o perormances in his lot on MercerStreet involving an extremely slow and protracted setup or a scene that continued into theearly morning. The preparation or the scene was the show itsel, which would end simply withthe completion o the preparation. That is, the idle anticipation was the point, and the specta-cle o the completed preparation (an enormous accumulation o junk in a massive pile in thecenter o the stage) was the end. Brecht describes riends/spectators entering the room, pass-ing by, alling asleep on the soa, helping Smith organize the huge heap o junk at the center othe scene as a sort orag picker, a gure so dear to Benjamin committed to the collectiono traces o everything that is disregarded by history and by the modern city. Brecht describesriends/spectators chatting among themselves, smoking marijuana. He recalls himsel allingasleep, smoking, helping Smith organize the junk pile. He ound himsel participating in an

enchantment that was part o a longue-dure labor o desire sustaining a perormance that wasconstantly denying or deerring itsel as an event but which could be encountered in precisemoments o attraction, in striking images glimpsed rom the chaos o rejected and discardedaccomplished images. The sort o production/consumption emerging rom Brechts writingis one that allows Smiths labor to become itsel, but to do so, as in the activity o children, in anabsolute absence o hurry:

Sleepiness, boredom in the case o many [spectators] probably irritation or anger alternate with mild hilarity and a trancelike appreciation o the beauty o the orm o timedisplayed as object this last eeling strengthening in intensity as this object is progres-sively constituted. The only real eeling o objection that I have noticed in mysel mightbe put: why the uck am I not ucking instead? (Brecht 1978:17)

We could call Smiths theatre practice, consummated by Brecht as it was by many otherspectators who had the privilege to witness this labor an idle theatre, insoar as it proceeds


9/10

GiuliaPalladini

102

with the prospect o an unlimited duration, even i it is projected towards meeting the atten-tion o specic consumers, who did in act coner upon it a peculiar use: the critical appreci-ation o the beauty o the orm o time displayed as object (Brecht 1978:17). These consumersdid not place proper demands on the theatre labor in which they were invited to partici-pate, but were rather called upon to mobilize their own pleasure to sustain their act o witness-ing. Borrowing a term proposed by Joe Kelleher, who writes about the time delay between themoment in which an image is produced and the moments spectators will encounter it, the con-sumers o Smiths amateur theatre might be considered as latecomer spectators, spectators

who had to crawl to encounter the image, and crawl over the representation in a way thats notgoing to be comortable in any sense o the word (2008:58). Latecomer spectators, in a sense,are consumers who also deer the accomplishment o their attention, along with the pleasure atstake in their participation in a labor o persistence that seems to mime the precarious conditionin which this theatre labor took place.

Towards an End

Hannah and Arizona are still standing in the Coney Island unhouse. The passing o their time

and their oreplay dier rom ree play since it happens precisely in the interstices o a placeo amusement constructed (and later abandoned) as a tting capitalist leisure activity. As idletheatre labor, it exceeds the subordinated time and space assigned to leisure in the capitalisttime-sequence, as well as the exploitable status assigned to ree time in the neoliberal capitalisteconomy. I see it producing an accumulation o pleasure that is not dependent on an economicmeasure o productivity, although it is exposed and later incorporated into the show-business.I wish to imagine the spectators that might nd themselves consuming Hannah and Arizonaslabor. Unraveling the Saumseligkeito their sel-enjoyment, I am interested in what kind o

value might be produced in their perormances beyond the value exploited in the orm o spec-tacle by the amusement park barker.

Foreplay is a precarious labor o love that may stand on its own, unrewarded by attentionrom elsewhere; as the idle playulness that returns and keeps transorming itsel in relationto the capitalist economic system in which, over time, it fourishes. The undervalued practicethat comes rom a nonlinear genealogy o past and uture theatre labor is a labor o love whosetraces and strategies o resistance are displaced, in keeping with their very nature odpense, but

whose enduring not-yet-eventulness denies the orgasmic destiny o disappearance.

References

Benjamin, Walter. 1999. The Arcades Project. Ed. Rol Tiedemann, trans. Howard Eiland and KevinMcLaughlin. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press o Harvard University Press.

Benjamin, Walter. 2006. On Hashish. Ed. Howard Eiland. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press o HarvardUniversity Press.

Brecht, Stean. 1978. The Original Theatre o the City o New York rom the Mid-60s to the Mid-70s. Book 2:Queer Theatre. Frankurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Dalla Costa, Mariarosa, and Giovanna F. Dalla Costa, eds. 1999. Women, Development, and Labor oReproduction: Struggles and Movements. Trenton, NJ: Arica World Press, Inc.

Eyen, Tom. (1971) 1977. The Three Sisters (rom Springfeld, Illinois), A Trilogy: I. Why Hannas Skirt WontStay Down. In Ten Plays, 732. New York: Samuel French Inc.

Federici, Silvia. 1975. Wages Against Housework. London: Power o Women Collective.

Joseph, Miranda. 2002.Against the Romance o Community. Minneapolis: University o Minnesota Press.

Kelleher, Joe. 2008. On Sel-Remembering Theatres.Jonathan Burrows.www.jonathanburrows.ino/#

/text/?id=18&t=content (17 July 2012).


10/10

Towardsa

nIdleTheatre

103

Manchev, Boyan. 2011. Vermgen, Ausbeutung und Widerstand der Subjekt-Krper. Fr eine transversaleVernderung, inInventionen 1, eds. Isabell Lorey, Roberto Nigro, Gerald Raunig, 197213. Berlin:Diaphanes.

Marx, Karl. 1973. Grundrisse: Foundations o the Critique o Political Economy. Trans. Martin Nicolaus. London:Penguin Books.

Palladini, Giulia. 2011. The Amateur Hour: On Value, Personality and the Form o Appearance in theEconomy o Attention. South Atlantic Review 75, 3:6182.

Ridout, Nicholas. 2006. Stage Fright, Animals, and Other Theatrical Problems. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Waring, Marylin. 1988.I Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics, San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

The Politics and Poetics of Foreplay Palladini

Documents

Transcript of The Politics and Poetics of Foreplay Palladini