The isbn number and the registration paperwork at the top for her body as a recognized text is authentic as proven by an isbn search of Amazon (though interestingly enough, Barnes and Noble does NOT carry her):
The human body as text? As commodified product? Yes to the first, no to the second (it seems). She is not a commodity in that she costs £0 (itself a pun on weight and the pressures on female bodies through media?) and therefore is not for sale, though she is copyrighted and catalogued/classified. The body as text implies that she is composed of language in some way. Her lines and curves as visual symbols of an alphabet; her facial and body and oral gestures and noises communicate expressions of thoughts and emotions or states of being. Like any good text, her body contains a narrative expressed through age, scars, medical history, etc. 2009 is not her body’s birthdate as she was already a grown woman obviously, but it is her date of publication as it is the year the text was registered. She has registered herself as a hardback, presumably because of her vertebrae or could be because in the worlds of art and literature you need a thick skin. Subject matter is listed as “self publishing” since she is the author of her body and its narrative and no publishing company could edit or revise her body (though also perhaps none would accept her body as a publication they would put their name on). Although not every body is licensed by copyright, every single body is a text.
This is interesting. I feel as though she is commodifiying herself… and that’s “anti-feminist” in a way… but also you can see it as she has a story- hell many stories- in her along with other information. Everyone is a walking book of knowledge, we just don’t label ourselves as such.
I’m curious about the placement of the tattoo. Usually that is where a “tramp stamp” goes… Is she playing with that idea? She’s playing with other feminist ideas of the body so I feel that there must be some importance to her placing the tattoo where she did.
I do agree with you on her specifically selecting the sight for the ISBN…however, not sure it’s meant to signal the tramp stamp. I think if the body were a text, the isbn is usually found on the back cover towards the bottom…her back would be the back cover, no?
Also, not really a commodification in one sense: she is not for sale…the form states 0 pounds for cost therefore her body cannot be purchased. But she is objectifying/textualizing/registering/tracking/encoding herself. Is that “un-feminist”? Do all women artists and thinkers have to be concerned with gender? Might it not be a human issue? Are not all of our bodies measured and encoded as soon as we’re born? Weighed, assigned a name and SSN, registered to such and so parents, etc.?
Ha- It is brilliant and ballsy! I like how you broke this down to registering, tracking, and encoding. Reminds me of genetic cloning and literally coding the DNA to have a copyright signature in the show Orphan Black. While an extreme, it brings to light questions of not only ownership of your body and intellectual property, but your genetic makeup. What are you a product of? Who owns your output?
-Amanda
There are some other artists/ writers who are also interested in this kind of body writing. shelly jackson, for instance, enlists volunteers to tattoo parts of her fiction on their bodies. Makes a collective text.