Playing with dolls III

Alexander’s textiles artefacts and installations reference the discourse in Queer Theory and Craft Theory, challenging the validity of heteronormative textiles practices though queering ‘normal’ masculinised (i.e. building hardware) objects with feminised textiles craft materials and processes. Through his textiles practices, queer is given a (subjective) point of reference in the form of a creative artefact(s). This point of reference, the creative artefact(s), defies specific definition as it is continuously subjectified and ‘shifted’ by the viewer, thus allowing multiple readings. This relationality engages with the discourse on Relational Aesthetics (Bourriaud, c2002) a foundational theory of the a/r/tographic methodology applied to his research projects. Craft itself “has been defined many times, and yet remains elusive as a category, discipline and practice” (Niedderer & Townsend, 2010, p. 4). “Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant. There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers”(Halperin, 1995, p. 62) and Craft Theory is something ‘other’ than, and alternate to, the dominant critical art discourse. Craft theorist Glenn Adamson (2007, 2013) has argued that the interesting thing about craft is that it is perceived to be inferior or supplemental to art. Alexander’s textiles artefacts and installations construct a visual argument about the queer and marginalised status of textiles crafts within the fine arts discourse and that crafts practices could be considered an inherently queer practice. In this context, ‘Queer’ could be defined as non-normative, oppositional, and a reclaiming of the marginalised. Overlaying this is Alexander’s assertion of the highly gendered nature of textiles practices and that his textiles practices challenge accepted (hetero) normative codification of textiles arts and crafts. This encourages (re)assessment and (re)evaluation of textiles crafts practices and pedagogies (Kokko, 2009, 2012).