The Retro-Futurism of Cuteness
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
the retro-futurism of cuteness Before you start to read this book, take this moment to think about making a donation to punctum books, an independent non-profit press, @ https://punctumbooks.com/support/ If you’re reading the e-book, you can click on the image below to go directly to our donations site. Any amount, no matter the size, is appreciated and will help us to keep our ship of fools afloat. Contri- butions from dedicated readers will also help us to keep our commons open and to cultivate new work that can’t find a welcoming port elsewhere. Our ad- venture is not possible without your support. Vive la open-access. Fig. 1. Hieronymus Bosch, Ship of Fools (1490–1500) the retro-futurism of cuteness. Copyright © 2017 by editors and au- thors. This work carries a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 International li- cense, which means that you are free to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, and you may also remix, transform and build upon the material, as long as you clearly attribute the work to the authors (but not in a way that suggests the authors or punctum books endorses you and your work), you do not use this work for commercial gain in any form whatsoev- er, and that for any remixing and transformation, you distribute your rebuild under the same license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ First published in 2017 by punctum books, Earth, Milky Way. https://punctumbooks.com ISBN-13: 978-1-947447-28-8 (print) ISBN-13: 978-1-947447-29-5 (ePDF) lccn: 2017957439 Library of Congress Cataloging Data is available from the Library of Congress Copy editing: Athena Tan Book design: Vincent W.J. van Gerven Oei Cover image: Pikachu Samurai by Andihandro (Andy Smith) The Retro-Futurism of Cuteness Edited by Jen Boyle and Wan-Chuan Kao Contents Introduction: The Time of the Child · · · · · · · · · · · · 13 Wan-Chuan Kao & Jen Boyle Torturer-Cute · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 29 Andrea Denny-Brown Indulgence and Refusal: Cuteness, Asceticism, and the Aestheticization of Desire Elizabeth Howie · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 53 From “Awe” to “Awww”: Cuteness and the Idea of the Holy in Christian Commodity Culture Claire Maria Chambers · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·67 “All the Pretty Little Ponies”: Bronies, Desire, and Cuteness Justin Mullis · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·87 Consuming Celebrity: Commodities and Cuteness in the Circulation of Master William Henry West Betty Marlis Schweitzer · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 111 Embracing the Gremlin: Judas Iscariot and the (Anti-)Cuteness of Despair Mariah Junglan Min · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 137 Cute, Charming, Dangerous: Child Avatars in Second Life Alicia Corts · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 155 ix What’s Cute Got To Do With It?: Early Modern Proto-Cuteness in King Lear James M. Cochran · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 175 Hamlet, Hesperides, and the Discursivity of Cuteness Kara Watts · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 195 Cute Lacerations in Doctor Faustus and Omkara Tripthi Pillai · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 219 Katie Sokoler, Your Construction Paper Tears Can't Hide Your Yayoi Kusama-Neurotic Underbelly Kelly Lloyd · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·243 Contributors · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 261 Acknowledgments We would like to thank Joshua Paul Dale, Genelle Gertz, Colby Gordon, Jonathan Hsy, Molly Johnson, Nathan Jurgenson, Julia Leyda, Christine Libby, Anthony McIntyre, Cody Norris, Holly Pickett, Nicole Russell, Will Smith, and Christopher Swift; at punctum books: Eileen Fradenburg Joy, Vincent W.J. van Ger- ven Oei, Athena Tan, and Lucas Bang. xi Introduction: The Time of the Child Wan-Chuan Kao & Jen Boyle The Pokémon Go craze went global in the summer of 2016. Gamers, through their smartphone screens and cameras, could see an “augmented reality” — one animated by adorable poké- mon that they had to find, catch, and collect — superimposed on the world around them. Playing the game inside the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, we found ourselves mesmer- ized by the eerie entanglement of the embodied works of art all around us and the disembodied figures of cuteness overrunning the place. A strange temporal nexus had transformed and over- taken the museum. There, behind a Greek statue, lurked Pika- chu. Inside one of the major aesthetic archives in the world, we witnessed not only the backward mapping of the postmodern cute onto old artifacts but also the forward projection of cute potential from the same relics of art. Moving through a space of clashing aesthetic modalities, we were children once more. The study of cuteness, at its heart, is an investigation of the problematics of temporality. Faced with a cute object, the subject makes a simultaneous double move: the subject regresses to the time-space of childhood and projects the child onto the future. The cute is always already the child, the childlike, and the child- ish across species and animacy lines. Even among more “adult” manifestations of the cute — say, sado-cute or porno-cute — the ghost of the child, or more specifically, the body of the child, remains the foundational source of sensual, emotional, and cog- 13 the retro-futurism of cuteness nitive arousal, despite transformations that might have rendered the child utterly unrecognizable. Cuteness is therefore a retro- futuristic aesthetic-affective category, at once nostalgic and tele- ological. In the rapture of the “Awww” utterance, the cute child is endlessly reborn in a tautology of adoration. The default double temporal movements of the cute re- sponse might be explained by Konrad Lorenz’s theory of “child schema” (Kindchenschema) that postulates a set of juvenile fea- tures — such as a round, soft body with a disproportionately large head and round eyes — that trigger a person’s instinctual caretaking response. The tenacity of the figure of the child, or the idea of the child, is driven by biology. Cuteness is an evolu- tionary adaptation, an aesthetic in the service of biology. But as powerful as Lorenz’s theory has been, scholars have questioned and complicated the child-schema thesis. As social scientists have demonstrated, caretaking is but one of a range of cute responses possible; the broader aim of cuteness is to facilitate greater socialization, which may or may not involve nurture and protection. We have overprivileged the child in the affec- tive economy of cuteness. Put differently: not every child is cute, and not every cute object is a child. The cute object may take the subject backward to the primal scene of trauma or forward to a postapocalyptic ruin. Thomas LaMarre, analyzing the figure of the child in Hayao Miyazaki’s films, contends that “Miyazaki’s children or tweens are not so much about purity or innocence as about a sensory-motor openness, elasticity, and malleability. The child does not simply return you to the old pretechnologi- cal world but opens the possibility of a posttechnological world” (130). There may be a cute child in the past or the future, but this child is Walter Benjamin’s Angel of History, howling in the wilderness of civilization. If cuteness, mediated through the child, facilitates a kind of aesthetic time travel backward and forward, it paradoxical- ly freezes time as well. Part of the charm of the cute object is its seeming stasis, permanence, and resilience — qualities that contribute to a sense of security. Cuteness, as much as it allows for temporal fantasies, remains outside of time. The child does 14 Introduction not grow up. Frances Richards suggests that cuteness “stabilizes infancy, or the frailty of old age, or the foolishly unconscious actions of a supposedly competent adult, by reframing them in an atemporal, nonbiological, and consequence-free zone, not entirely unrelated to the fixed reality inside a picture” (95). In effect, the cute object is the commodity par excellence, with its promise of eternal sameness of the pleasure of consumption. On the one hand, cuteness is inextricable from modern capi- talism and consumer culture. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) dates the first reference to “cute” in the sense of “attrac- tive, pretty, charming” to 1834. Daniel Harris, Sianne Ngai, and Joshua Paul Dale, in their foundational studies of cuteness, have mostly replicated the OED’s etymological impulses and confined their analyses of cuteness attached to a historiography of the rise of modernity, especially in the nineteenth and twentieth cen- turies. The commodified cute thereby charts the emergence of modern categories of gender, sexuality, growth, development, production, consumption, habits, and habitats. On the other hand, because of its temporal versatility (the ability to move backward and forward or to freeze), cuteness also holds the promise of endowing subjects with agency and the possibility of moving before, beyond, and also along with, if not entirely escaping, modernity. Ngai suggests that the cute object essentially functions as D.W. Winnicott’s transitional object, which is crucial to an infant’s transition from a world of “me” (the Lacanian realm of images) to a world of “not me” (the Lacanian realm of symbols). A transitional object facilitates the infant’s adaptation to the mother’s failure to sustain the illu- sion of being part of the infant’s self by serving as an object that is simultaneously “me’ and “not me.” Through the transitional