Morphology

I am fascinated by the work of Burson and her recent project - the Human Race Machine (2002). I'm increasingly interested in learning about the concept/tactic of "passing," and/or "dragging," and believe that this project potentially allows for the active participant to temporarily "pass" or "drag," as the "other", someone out side of who they are. I find it to be incredibly interesting that the project was critiqued for not fully being an accurate demonstrating of allowing someone who witness what it would be like to be another race. Simply, it is humanly impossible to put someone else in the skin of an individual of the opposite race. Whilst I agree that the project does not create an insight into the lives of the opposite race or allows for an understanding of their historical condition, however, I do think it it is important to recognize that just by visually seeing yourself as a race outside of who you are - is the first step. Burson's machine allows for the first step of the process of recognizing difference as not completely divergent from being similar. One's ability to see oneself as a different race/body type etc, allows not for awareness of the historical circumstances that that particular race has experienced, but as a means to temporarily and superficially see oneself as the other. Why is this considered to be a bad idea, when there seems to be few other methods or examples that would allow for a similar experience, even if to a much lesser degree? Obviously the machine is a artificial experience, but how can it also be viewed as something positive and insightful? Through reading the Morphology text by Gonzalez, I cant help but think that perhaps these these issues/machines etc can be often over-thought and over analyzed is in order to immediately shut down the idea due to its difference and audacity.

I am also interested in exploring the concept of Identity Tourism. How does Identity Tourism serves to widen the gap between the individual who is participating in the machine and the "other" identity that they are trying to view themselves as....? Why is this merely seen as widening the gap versus closing it. In connection to Burson's usage of photographic/computer technology, how can cyber identity come into play within the concept of the human race machine? When one has the ability to pose as the
"other" entirely behind a screen/technology with no censor ship (online communities etc) are they considered to be passing, practicing identity tourism, or dragging the other? (The other does not have to be defined solely under racial terms, but can mean class/gender/sexuality etc). Food for thought.