CamGirl vs. Echochamber

My intent was to discuss personal obstacles to intimacy – especially in relation to body image issues and my sexuality as a queer person; I attempted to do this in a solo performance by appropriating the aesthetics of femininity and…

CamGirl vs. Echochamber

Source

0
(0)

My intent was to discuss personal obstacles to intimacy – especially in relation to body image issues and my sexuality as a queer person; I attempted to do this in a solo performance by appropriating the aesthetics of femininity and camgirl culture in response to the male gaze. I was especially interested in engaging with my dual role as both a media producer and consumer to reclaim sexual autonomy and healthy intimacy through imagemaking. In regards to tactics, my goal was to be intimate with an image of myself as a non-male person for the reason that I still feel more “normal” when engaging with a male partner romantically/sexually/intimately. The means of documentation were a part of the performance itself because one of the themes which I sought to allude to is the hypersexualization of queer folks; the webcam in tandem with the GoPro achieved an effect that was voyeuristic. Additionally, my adoption of a/the CamGirl persona allowed me to do, frankly put, some weird shit – especially shit that would be fetishized (I.e., treatment of lipstick tube as a phallic image/icon) been fetishized. Furthermore, I would argue that the performance and documentation – or atleast the initial recordings – are inseparable. However, there is a presence of b-roll in the film for purposes of ambience. As for problems within the work? I’ll state two major issues: 1) this was a solo performance, and this was not initially intended, however, I believe that this still adheres to my initial proposal on account of the queerness of camgirl culture and my engagement with it – with camgirl culture as being self-produced and a capital pursuit (sexwork) this inherently challenges cisgendered heteronormative power roles with the male as active in imagemaking and the female as subject/passive. Thus, queering a genre of production. 2) Trying to express intimacy was difficult without referencing the traditional aesthetic and signifiers of femininity (e.g., makeup, lingerie, pink tones, flowers). It was hard to break past this. 3) Sound! I was unsure as of creative ways to engage the audience with audio. However, I wanted to maintain the hum of the computer and projector as consistent with the technology/media motif. As for successes, I feel that the functioning of my body in the space was effective along with the set design – which I constructed myself – ultimately, it was interactive. I feel that I used every part of the space around me.

0 / 5. 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *