That Trinh T. Minh-ha has really got me thinking. I knew she was onto something when I quoted her in that research paper for JICA, but haven’t gotten around to reading more of her till now.

So, in beginning to reframe what she is saying here:

“With the tools available, one can create different time-spaces that expose or turn to advantage the fissures, gaps and lapses of the system. We’re coming back here to the notion of inappropriate(d)ness as linked to the notion of boundary event, which I’ve been elaborating in my more recent works. The challenge is not to fall prey to the dominant process of totalization: rather than working at bringing, through gradual acquisition, what has been kept invisible into visibility, one would have to break with such a system of dualities and show, for example, what constitutes invisibility itself as well as what exceeds mere visibility.”

I take the basic drive as resisting the dominant process of totalization, and destroy it by breaking it into many facets.

But, thats just a school-book easy highschool rioter’s simplification, so I have to elaborate the task she sets here:

As I said, this is just a question, phrased in a way that makes more sense to me than her invisible thing (Any help there, folks? Please? There is a comment section below if you have any insight into her visibility thing).

And this image is included just for kicks: