This is quite wonderful.


"I think of O’Hara’s “Why I Am Not A Painter”…he starts the poem with the intention of making it clear that he’s not a painter, he’s a poet. But then he goes on and proceeds to make his argument in defense of his chosen medium in the most painterly way, which makes it obvious that the dude has clearly been looking at other forms of art—painting, even—in order to figure out how to use language, how to see the world. If you look solely at your own practice, you ghettoize yourself, you blind yourself to the vast and gorgeous potentiality of what it means to make.

Influences are what fuel production and act as a catalyst for new ideas and departures. So if being “multimedia” is the best way to acknowledge that, so be it. However, I am of the school of encouraging people toward their ultimate polymath identities. It is only within more recent history that people have been increasingly pressured to decide their entire lives and selves early on. This acceptance of sameness, of homogeneity, it is a sort of globalizing of our very existences, a mirroring of what is taking place in the world at large. The more we limit ourselves, the more we come into conflict with the reality that a human being inevitably transforms into many different selves throughout the span of a lifetime.
I say, let’s bring back the Renaissance approach—the O.G. of “multimedia.” I have been writing a lot about a term—“glitch”—that I think perfectly captures this essence. “Glitch” comes from the Yiddish glitsch, which means “a slip.” That slipping and sliding, that liminal space, that is where I want to be. I like to say these days that I am a Glitch Feminist and a liminal artist. I am a body in transition, and the things I write, or make, or produce, are for other bodies out in the world who are also excited about undergoing different types of transformation, too. For me, arrival is commensurate with finality, and that is the kiss of death. It is the intermixing of processes that keeps my gears turning.”