tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post116127776658457624..comments2024-03-04T04:12:57.650-05:00Comments on THEORY NOW: Performance Art:Recreation or EmulationMark Cameron Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1162761070954025382006-11-05T16:11:00.000-05:002006-11-05T16:11:00.000-05:00Ok, I fully rescind my comment that Abromavic's co...Ok, I fully rescind my comment that Abromavic's cover was original, I overlooked the many times it had been done before, so I apologize for that. <BR/>I guess Abromavic isn't really bringing that much new to the table.Rebecca Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09241434087715412317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1162742596740719092006-11-05T11:03:00.000-05:002006-11-05T11:03:00.000-05:00Rebecca: There is documentation that proves other ...Rebecca: <BR/>There is documentation that proves other performance artists have already “used appropriation this way before,” thereby making Abramovic’s “covers” pedantic, if not inauthentic emulations. To quote from the <I>AiA</I> article, <I>“Back for One Night Only”</I>, that I gave you: <BR/><I>Though the Guggenheim series was ground-breaking in its scope, precedents do exist, from Sturtevant doing Beuys in 1971, to Laura Parnes doing Mike Kelley and Paul McCarthy just a few years ago; in fact Abramovic’s own work has also been ‘covered,’ by five women in Amsterdam performing a piece they called ‘Marina Positions.’</I><BR/><BR/> And from an <A HREF="http://www.erikandtheanimals.com/blog/2006/02/re-do-it-re-presenting-bodies-in.html#links" REL="nofollow">art blog</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>There has been a recent trend for signal performance artists of the 60s and 70s to either re-do iconic works from their past careers, or to recreate the work through documentation and installations of ephemera and objects. For example, Paul Schimmel, curator of "Out of Actions: Between Performance and the Object 1949-1979"(MOCA, Los Angeles, 1998) invited Carolee Schneeman to partially recreate her 1963 mixed media installation <I>Eye Body</I> for that exhibition. Ironically, a crucial element in the original presentation of this piece was the performer's own nude, painted body, which however was not included in the recreation. In November 2005, Marina Abramovic "re-did" seven iconic performances by artists such as Vito Acconci, Joseph Beuys, Gina Pane, and others at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City. This event triggered further conversations about performative repetition and re-presentation, historicity, and the impossibility of documenting the ephemeral. As well, the increasing uses of digital media, telepresence, electronic networking, and virtual presence in performances have complicated questions of the "Re-do", embodiment, presence, and virtuality in performative practices. Because by definition performance art usually is live, experiential, ephemeral, site- and occasion-specific, many scholars have argued that performances should not, and some times cannot, be repeated or documented, as that would negate the very nature of live presence art and its "you have to be there to experience it" aura.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, in reference to "the impossibility in documenting the ephemeral," any recreation of a previously existing performance work denies the fleeting, time/space site-specificity of the original piece by the very nature of it being a latter-day “cover.” I will close with two more statements from other sources:<BR/><BR/><I>Performance's only life is in the present. Performance cannot be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise participate in the circulation of representations of representations: once it does so, it becomes something other than performance.</I> <BR/>(Peggy Phelan, <I>The Politics of Performance</I>, 146 – cited here: <BR/>http://www.artsjournal.com/artopia/archives20051101.shtml)<BR/><BR/>And:<BR/><BR/><I>The performance art of the early 1970s was concrete. We made one-time sculpture actions. If Mr. Burden's work were recreated by another artist, it would be turned into theater, one artist playing the role of another.</I><BR/>(Tom Marioni, SF performance artist in his letter to the <I>New York Times</I>.)Mark Cameron Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1162696866689968112006-11-04T22:21:00.000-05:002006-11-04T22:21:00.000-05:00Well, I still say, speaking only from what I know ...Well, I still say, speaking only from what I know about performance art, that Abromavic did "push" the boundaries of appropriation and performance because (1) nobody had used appropriation this way before and (2) because her works holds a tension between being ephemeral (because it is a performance, fleeting) and being static (because it's so grounded to the past performance it directly copies).<BR/>And no I'm not saying that to reference other works is to equate with media...but "reinacting" (which is what she is doing rather than referencing) a piece does relate to mass media (in terms of acting, documenting and levels of reinterpretation through media).Rebecca Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09241434087715412317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1162678509388855852006-11-04T17:15:00.000-05:002006-11-04T17:15:00.000-05:00Russell: Yes, another "level" of "interpretation,"...Russell: Yes, another "level" of "interpretation," truly an "exploitation" of previously conceptualized, although much weaker performance piece. Acconci's <I>Seedbed</I> already addressed the issue of gender relative to the performer with greater power.<BR/><BR/>Rebecca: Are you saying that because Abramovic has "referenced" a previous work this equates her cover version of the work with "media?" Of course one can "assert" and "question" simultaneously, but I think Maria only succeeded in "expanding" an appropriative "technique" rather than "pushing" the boundaries of either performance or appropriation.Mark Cameron Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1162410631671321812006-11-01T14:50:00.000-05:002006-11-01T14:50:00.000-05:00i meant "concerning" in my first sentence...not "c...i meant "concerning" in my first sentence...not "considering"...Rebecca Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09241434087715412317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1162410581937025362006-11-01T14:49:00.000-05:002006-11-01T14:49:00.000-05:00As to "why do it at all" (considering Maria Abromo...As to "why do it at all" (considering Maria Abromovic's piece", I guess I am sympathetic partly and simply to the inovation of "covering" an artwork, especially performance. I think that it does both question and assert the ideas of ephemerality in performance art because it references a specific event, in the manner of documentation or dramatic reinactment (which references mass media, and theater) but also makes it new by addressing gender issues. It's also relevant that we know from her other artwork that Maria does have her own ideas and this is one of them, rather than only an apropriation of another idea. Apropriation is used everywhere in the artworld why not push those boundaries?Rebecca Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09241434087715412317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1161991601452967072006-10-27T19:26:00.000-04:002006-10-27T19:26:00.000-04:00My explanation may not be necessarily “better,” Ja...My explanation may not be necessarily “better,” Jackie. But let me go back up to Shanthi’s original post:<BR/><BR/>There is a presumption that performance needs an audience, and I think we could all agree on this. Granted one can do “private” performances, and art making itself is mostly done in private, excluding the academic studios, but we understand performance to be “manifested” as a connection between performer and audience. As Acconci terms it, “an exchange between artist and viewer.” <BR/><BR/>In reference to the idea of a “finished piece” of art (painting, sculpture) being like a video, “finished” art objects are decidedly more static than video or film; again, the idea of performance is focused on <I>duration</I> and <I>presence</I>.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with Schneeman’s characterization of viewing performance as being “more passive” than viewing static art objects. The range of eye motion, cognitive and perceptive recognition required seems to disprove that.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you, Jackie: Abramovic’s <I>Seedbed</I> was about something other than Acconci’s <I>original intention</I>, so why do a “cover” at all? If she wants to do a piece about gender issues then she should use her own ideas.Mark Cameron Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1161879229305280262006-10-26T12:13:00.000-04:002006-10-26T12:13:00.000-04:00this is JackieJoyce: what about mobile sculptures...this is Jackie<BR/>Joyce: what about mobile sculptures? ir just walking around a scuplture, or looking at a video. I don't see the difference<BR/><BR/>Shanthi: I thought the same way you did about the body being the object and Mark explained it better to me. I think the process in performance art is everything up until the perfomance begins (all the preparation and thinking behind it). When the performance begins, it is not the process anymore, but the art. The body is a part the act, but the art is the entire performance, meaning the stage, the voice, the music, the props and the people. It is everything included in the happening. I think Mark could explain this betterAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1161865243221102032006-10-26T08:20:00.000-04:002006-10-26T08:20:00.000-04:00Jackie: Carolee Schneemann was describing how in h...Jackie: Carolee Schneemann was describing how in her performances, or she calls it her "painting-constructions", the viewer is overwhelmed with movements constantly changing and it's different that viewing a piece of still art because: the viewer has the choice of how much time to spend responding to formal elements and content while viewing paintings and sculpture. in performances, its sort of more physical in the participation involved.joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07367147740140742784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1161775220913675282006-10-25T07:20:00.000-04:002006-10-25T07:20:00.000-04:00the whole time i was reading the chapter 8 reading...the whole time i was reading the chapter 8 readings, the topic of gender was impossible to ignore. but then i thought of a reading on acconci's performances from last year that was actually about acconci transforming himself between genders continuously. <BR/><BR/>shanthi: carolee schneeman said that the viewer in a performance piece was "visually more passive" compared to looking at something still. but they are more active physically because they keep having to looking at movements and the body in an environment. i have only been to one performance piece and i wanted to stay to see what kept changing; and it was also empowering to see a female performance artist . i hope that answered at least one of your many questions! :)joycehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07367147740140742784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1161733562147904032006-10-24T19:46:00.000-04:002006-10-24T19:46:00.000-04:00Becky: Performance art is inherently “ephemeral,” ...Becky: Performance art is inherently “ephemeral,” and related to <I>duration</I> and <I>presence</I>. Thus, Abramovic’s “covers” of earlier works do not “redefine” the works but instead contradict the original conceptions of each piece in terms of the respective “time-based” site specificity. I fail to see how one can “reassert” these principles at the same time that one “questions” them.<BR/>If we consider Abramovic’s re-interpretations of previous performance artworks as “covers,” or a different “take” on a work by another performer, then we are equating the documentation of performance, i.e., photographs, video, instructions, as malleable substances that can be “performed” endlessly like a kind of “music.” Music is an experience of sound (excluding the physicality of the musicians who are playing) that requires the mind and ear of the listener to “complete” the experience. Moreover, music relies on <I>memory</I> to become “art,” whereas one of the strengths of performance art is its limited essence as an action taking place at a particular time and within a particular place.Mark Cameron Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1161373587013293532006-10-20T15:46:00.000-04:002006-10-20T15:46:00.000-04:00Abramovic's performance work "redefines" the art a...Abramovic's performance work "redefines" the art as something ephemeral, time-based, site specific, and based around the dematerialization of the art object. I think that doing a "cover" of a performance piece opens up questions and issues about the work's site specificity and ephemerality but at the same time reasserts these as it's characteristics, which is what's interesting about it. Abromovic's statement about "see[ing] the whole process and the disappearing of the process at the same moment", I don't think make this "cover" any less within the constructs of her definition, but rather make it on the next level of questions.Rebecca Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09241434087715412317noreply@blogger.com