RuPaul Drag Race is an American reality TV show produced by World of Wonder, broadcasted on Netflix and presented by singer, actor, and drag queen RuPaul. A friend of mine suggested to watch it thinking that I would have liked it. In the show, drag queens compete to become “America’s next drag superstar” through creative performances. My friend was right: I liked the show. I like it and the fact that this “drag performer took a long (and still) marginalized art form and used it to create an empire”. Using ideas such as gender-bender, the show defies and mocks gender stereotypes. The vocabulary is transformed (history becomes ‘herstory’, email turns into ‘shemail’, etc.), the words ‘gentlemen’ and ‘ladies’ are used interchangeably, and very often the show crosses the borders of the politically correct. In other words, RuPaul Drag Race subverts all sort of preconceived idea concerning gender and sexuality leaving us sometimes lost, amused and shocked, in a positive but also in a bad way.
In fact, if on one side the show aims to annihilate those pre-conceptions about manhood and womanhood, on the other side it reinforces them. Without going into the debates and critiques concerning blackness and whiteness (RuPaul is a gay black man who has been criticised for working for a white audience), the show fails sometimes in pushing the gender critique. The men in the competition have to dress as women, ergo they cannot keep their beard or have short masculine hair. They have to be waxed and wear long hair and high heels. Feminists find these requests unacceptable when they are addressed to women, but in the show the same requests seem acceptable because they are addressed to men. It seems that the show instead of breaking gender rules reinvigorates them, as according to the judges and RuPaul himself, to be a ‘woman’ a man has to wear high heels and long hair. Judge Michelle Visage often insists that she does not want to see men on stage, but women and penalises those competitors who do not comply.
Innovation and stereotype also concern the debate, often raised in the show, about different types of drag art. The contestants come from different artistic backgrounds, so they practice different types of drag (camp, pageant) which seem to represent sub-fields of drag. Some of the contestants (never more than one per season) practice a more creative and unsettling type of drag which plays with horror and monstrosity. An example is Sharon Needle, whose drag name in itself represents a different way of doing drag as it is not exotic or sexual – it sounds like “sharing needles”. Bourdieu would have called her a ‘heretic’ opposed to more ‘orthodox’ drag queens who play according to the rules of the field.
To sum up, if a great element of defying gender stereotypes exists in the show, at the same time a sort of reinforcement of those stereotypes (especially those associated to women) is still present.
First published in War on the Rocks
If limbo is defined as “an imaginary place for lost, forgotten, or unwanted persons and things”, then Moldova is definitely in limbo. At any instant, violent conflict may erupt in this small state at the edge of Europe and Russia, but in the meantime the country and its people wait for better times. This feeling of uncertainty and neglect was presented in a collection of works by Moldovan artists in the exhibition ‘Waiting for Better Times’, at the Zachęta gallery in Warsaw. This exhibition presents the work of major Moldovan contemporary artists who show the contradictions of their society through their art. But why do we need to care about these contradictions? Why do we need to care about Moldova, in general?
Moldova is a country situated at the borders of the European Union, landlocked between Romania and Ukraine. It was part of the Soviet Union and declared its independence in 1991. Today, Moldova is the poorest country in Europe and is also famous for its frozen conflict, the Transnistrian conflict. Transnistria is a separatist region in Moldova, situated between the Nistru River and Ukraine. In 1990, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and before Moldova’s declaration of independence, Transnistria, declared its independence and a war between Moldova and Transnistria broke out. When Moldovan troops started to advance on the city of Bender, which is on the border between Moldova and Transnistria, Russian troops intervened and they imposed the ceasefire. Moldovan President Mircea Snegur and Russian President Boris Yeltsin signed this ceasefire. The Russian government has never officially recognised the Transnistrian independence. It is not clear why Russia has not recognised Transnistria’s sovereignty, but it seems that in the first decade of the frozen conflict Russia was trying to negotiate the one state settlement between the two parties. It is obvious that Russia wants to maintain influence its ‘near abroad’, but it also wants to defend a version of international law that protects territorial integrity. What is clear is that until the conflict is resolved, Moldova will remain politically unstable and has very little chance of becoming a candidate for the EU. Since its independence, Moldovan foreign policy has oscillated between pro-European and pro-Russian orientations. Because of this incongruous attitude, the country’s political transition has often been defined as “ambiguous.”
In June 2014, Moldova signed an association agreement with the EU. This agreement aimed to strengthen economic ties between Moldova and the EU and installed a visa-free regime of up to three months for Moldovans travelling in Europe. The objective of the Moldovan government is the EU membership that, for now, does not seem possible, especially because of the Transnistrian conflict. A period of uncertainty preceded the signature of the association agreement because EU and Moldovan authorities feared a heating up of the conflict because of the Ukrainian crisis. Even though no violent clashes followed the signature of the agreement, the situation in the region remains tense.
‘Waiting for Better Times’ is an exhibition which explores socio-political issues characterising contemporary Moldova. Most of the Moldovan artists who exhibit their work there have a common characteristic: they were born before the collapse of the Soviet Union and witnessed Moldova’s socio-economic transition. The exhibition displays videos, performances, photographs, and paintings. These works of art contain recurrent themes, such as the problem of migration, new borders created by the EU, identity issues concerning the creation of the Moldovan state, and a rampant wave of consumerism which is spreading across the country.
The work of Tatiana Fiodorova, for example, shows the difficulty of a Moldovan transition into the capitalist system and the identity problem arising from this situation. The video “European clothing” shows the artist going to a market in Chisinau, the Moldovan capital, to buy clothes which can help her to look more ‘European’. In this market, one can find imitations of famous brands at a reduced price. In the video, the artist tries on different clothes, but underneath her clothing, she continues to wear Soviet unisex underwear. In this performance, the meaning of ‘being European’ is questioned and the struggle between two identities, the Soviet and the EU identity, is revealed. This struggle resumes the difficulties of the Moldovan transition suspended between past and future.
An investigation of the concept of being European with a Soviet past is also present in another of Fiodorova’s performances which is shown in a video. This performance was the result of the refusal without any explanation of the UK authorities to give her a visa to visit London. Shocked, Fiodorova decided to express her disappointment through a performance. In this performance, the artist is in a big plastic tartan bag (a symbol of Eastern European migrants) with the stars of the EU flag on it. She emerges from the bag, grovelling. Through this performance, Fiodorova questions the perception that Europe has of her as a Moldovan: a migrant coming from a poor country and trying to take advantage of the European system. The Western perception of Moldova is also present in the work of Pavel Brăila and Manuel Raeder. The two artists created a poster in response to a poster for Manifesta4, an event celebrating the fall of the Berlin Wall. This poster showed a map of Europe with a border dividing Romania and Ukraine. On this map, Moldova was absent. Thus, the artists created a poster displaying a map of Europe without Moldova in it and they put a piece of paper on the poster stating: “Probably Moldova doesn’t Exist”. The two artists’ provocation contains lots of humour, but at the same time, it underlines a terrible situation: the indifference of Europe towards this country. In fact, sometimes people do not know where Moldova is situated and the country is often confused with Moldavia, a region located in Romania. Also, sometimes Europeans think that Moldova is part of Romania, as was the case during the Second World War.
The evanescence of Moldovan borders is the subject of Rothko Politicus –The Joy of Colours. Me and my Girlfriend by Dumitru Oboroc. Oboroc’s poignant artwork consists of a painting of a Romanian and a Moldovan passport, and was created in 2007, after Romania’s accession to the EU. Before 2007, he was living in Moldova and had a girlfriend in Romania. Before Romania’s accession to the EU, he used to cross the border to meet her. But in 2007, he could not cross the border anymore because Romania had become an EU member and he needed a visa or a Romanian passport if he wanted to see her. This sudden change pushed him to think that a “political situation can affect human beings and their ability to see each other over geopolitically constructed borders”. The painting shows the cruelty of borders which are able to alter ‘normality’. What before was easy for Oboroc (seeing his girlfriend) was no longer possible. Romanian and EU authorities considered the membership a great achievement to be celebrated, but this decision was not welcomed with the same enthusiasm by Moldovan citizens. These people could not do much to protest this decision, they could only accept it. In his work, Oboroc tries to understand the meaning that borders can have in a war situation. He thinks that borders are only bureaucratic instruments which would have no meaning if a war broke out. In fact, on one side a border was abolished (with the EU), but a new one was built (with Moldova). And this could only provoke increasing tensions in the region.
Oboroc’s painting made me think of Der geteilte himmel (Divided Heaven) by Christa Wolf. This book talks about the psychological division of the two protagonists after the building of the Berlin Wall. The material fence contributes to the construction of the psychological fence, making individuals powerless.
Seemingly, Dorin Goian’s photographs of the removal of the barbed wire between Moldova and Romania in the village of Cotrul-Morii foster a reflection about the meaning of the borders. In these pictures, Goian captures the moment when the barbed wire was removed thanks to an improvement in the relations between Romania and Moldova. In 2010, the pro-European coalition won the elections in Moldova and the two countries signed an agreement to remove the fence. In my opinion, these pictures do not seem to have a celebrative meaning. On the contrary, I think that they want to underline the controversial meaning of the border’s abolition. In fact, the barbed wire was abolished because Moldova was getting closer the EU. As Moldovan authorities decided to be on the ‘right side’, the wire was removed. Thus, the border can represent a reward and an identity demarcation.
The exhibition made me realise why political art can be disturbing and upset people. While I was visiting the exhibition, I heard allegedly that the Moldovan Ambassador in Warsaw had refused to go to the opening. But a few days before I was there, he had visited the exhibition without notifying the gallery. Once there, he said that the artworks were very sad and that these artists should have exalted not criticised their country. “But in the end”, he said, “This is the way of thinking of artists, not politicians”. He also suggested that the gallery should have put Goian’s photographs at the first floor so that visitors could have seen a great moment in the relations between Moldova and Romania.
The reaction of the ambassador is not surprising. Ambassadors have the duty to promote the image of their country, whereas these artists show the problems which affect it. I think that even though this exhibition harshly portraits Moldovan society, it opens up a space of reflection on politics and society in Moldova. This kind of exhibition needs to be promoted, because it informs the public at large about the transitional status of Eastern European societies. As Marina Abramović once said: “Art has to be disturbing, art has to have a prediction of the future, art has to ask questions, and art has to be many things...but beautiful or not beautiful is not the point: it has to be true”.
 Oboroc, Dumitru. 2007. "Rothko Politicus –the Joy of Colours. Me and My Girlfriend ". Chisinau.
Two days ago, the School of IR screened the opera "The Death of Klinghoffer" by John Adams. After its creation, in 1991, the piece received several controversial responses. The author was accused by his detractors of having "humanised" terrorists and, consequently, the work was labelled as anti-Semitic.
"The Death of Klinghoffer" tells the story of the Achille Lauro hijacking in 1985 by four Palestinians, members of the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF). These men first hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and then killed Leon Klinghoffer, a Jewish- American passenger on a wheelchair.
"The Death of Klinghoffer" did not seem an anti-Semitic work to me. On the contrary, the hijackers are depicted as individuals coming from a poor background attacking violently these people on the boat, and acting without any plan, except vengeance. Furthermore, the "dehumanisation" of Palestinians seems evident in certain scenes lacking of accuracy. For example, in a scene taking place in Palestine, a group of men disfigured a woman with acid because she was not wearing the hijab. This was not (and is not) a common practice in Palestine and I think that the scene just aimed to show Palestinians as brutal and repressive people.
In my opinion, the opera was taking a clear anti-Palestinian side, so I deducted that most of the people who criticised this work for being anti-Semitic, actually never saw it.
During the discussion that followed the opera screening, some people complained about the format the author chose to represent this fact, because opera is something which is not "accessible" to everybody. I think that the main reason why the opera did not seem to be "accessible" was the monotony of the music, which has nothing to do with the chosen format.
Finally, I think that it was good to show this opera, because the Achille Lauro hijacking is not very famous (even not amongst some academics who study terrorism). This hijack was a fact that at the time deteriorated the relationship between Italy and the U.S. In fact, the Italian government knew of Klinghoffer's death, but did not inform the U.S. government on time. Moreover, after the hijacking, the Italian government let go one of the terrorists, Abu Abbas, against the will of the U.S. These facts were not shown in the opera, which ended with Klinghoffer's wife discovery of her husband's death.