[A/H Index] [^^Terms MASTER Index]
Performance Art
See also: [Text as art material]
[Coerced performance]
-[post post-modernism]-
[The Performed Art Technology]
[Performance Absurd]
[Dada]
[frank as performance object]
[ "PARTS ONE, TWO, THREE" ]
[Performed Art] (start here?)
[The Performed Art Act]
[The Performed Danse]
[Performed Art: Filmed]
[The Performed Score]
[The Performed Text]
[The Performed UFO's] (and esp, etc)
[The Performed WEB (including programming)]
[]
[Interventionist Art]
[Los Interioristas]
[(art) concepts]
[Art MovementsStreet Art]
[Fluxus]
[Street Art]
Performance Art
On this page: {Intro}
{Stuff}
{Performance Art as Art} (irreproducible)
{The Usual Suspects}
{Elements}
{Techniques}
-^_6
Intro
Performance art is like painting the barn.
There are four key steps:
1) Surface Preparation,
2) Surface Preparation,
3) Surface Preparation,
4) Painting the barn.
Likewise, the fore-thought and preparation that
goes into *any* art work are essential to its
final form; but in the case of performance art
- vital.
In the same way that a director of a play will
"tweek" it from night to night given a bit of
advice here, changing the timing there a bit,
or even deleting part of (or an entire) a scene.
You and or the players and staff putting a perf
work together have to keep working on aspects
of it. One can best think of a performance
work as a collage/assemblage and all of the
trimming/re-fastening and such that we go thru
in the more complicated pieces.
Finally, of course teamwork and a co-operative
group working on a perf work will almost always
enhance it. It is important to remember that
the author of the work (who may or may not be
the performer of the work) should have the
last say. This goes back to working with
directors - and all of the niceness that
may or may not happen in such cases.
As with all projects, the "strength" of the
work will help others to "get on board with
it". And of course, far too often un-justified
ego-tism will have a hand as well; as mentioned
before with directors (or of course THE star(s)
of the show, etc). We will TAKE IT AS READ that
there are some people in "the" performing arts
that you love to work with, and those that you
dread work with - just try to not be one of
the dread-ees.
Subtle works are the hardest to "leave alone".
One artist that i know does an indoor work
that is essentially "a homeless person" laying
on the sidewalk, *barely* proped up by the
wall next to the sidewalk. Her work is a very
moving work for most artists, but i've seen
directors trying to *over-work* her work. In
one case, the director asked what i thought,
i looked at her and said, "cigarette butts,
and fragments of McDonalds styrofoam boxes".
She looked (delighted), and off we went to
the local McD's for "props".
As with all other art: There is looking and
seeing, and then there is of course (as
Cezzane reminds us: It is not until i take
to draw something, that find that i have
never looked at it before. - not an exact
quote. I would say that the "eye" for
photography (which i, alas, do not have) is
the best way to look at the work and see what
it needs to have added to it, or taken away.
Another important way to look at perf work
is as an envolving work in progress. One can
even think of it like a TV series with spin
offs, product tie ins and such. If you think
about this, it's a way of taking the "template"
of commericalism and back-applying into the
art work. The point is that the philosphical
frame work of a given system may be used as
a maquette/framework for the perf work and
ways of looking at it.
And of course as always, we go back to
Picasso, Straviniski, etc, etc:
Artists create,
great artists steal.
Of course, our intention is not to *merely*
mimic or copy what has been done (or at least
it shouldn't be unless we are being particularly
sarcastic or critical, etc) but to create the
new - even if by using the past as referent.
Here i am thinking of things like Warhol's
pop-ularisation of soup cans, Maryilyn and
JFK (as icon), as well the "Arcades Project",
modernisation/urbanisation projects - or even
more appropriate the "drawing of lines" in
a city as to which sections get urban renewal
money, bank loans for home owners, etc. And
of course, all things political, social, etc.
Another aspect in the grouping of various
performance works. In this case, the idea can
be "sold" as a "performance art circus". Part
of the problem is that the general public may
or may not know what perf art is. For this
reason terms like "happenings" and "street
theatere" are used. Also, we should all agree
that it does not generally include theatre in
its usual manner - ie, immersive, but the
audience does NOT interact as such.
Of course, each of these aspects of the pref
work are things to be considered. And "in
the limit", perf art becomes stand-up and
ad-lib comedy/theatre/live-performance in
the sense of night clubs, concerts, etc.
Part of the problem (and boundless to never
be "solved") is that in doing the perf work
we tend to feel more like presenteurs than
actors/singer/performers/etc. We can also
use varying degrees of immersion OF our-selves
or others.
Again, one could make a check list of all of
these aspects/variable/dynamics/etc and then
put markers on them: 0 - 100% as to how much
of that aspect we intend to include in the work.
Finally, we have the idea of a story - that is,
a progressing narrative that evolves in the work.
I must say from my own (really quite limited)
experience is that if we have "cues" which we use
to change the pace, direction, mood, story-line,
etc. then the audience often does not pick up
on these (or at least many of them), and as such
the work becomes "muddled" or "un-understandable"
and as such does not accomplish the level of
clarity that we want. Imagine performing one
of Dali's works refering to this fear of
insects and the audience thinking that we'd
all gone berserk since we were now eating
crickets. Thus, the script even if it is
revealed (in the sense used in film/theatre
work) in a clear manner, may become muddled
as well. Note that i use the word "muddled"
in the same sense that we use the idea
"becomes muddied" in painting and ceramic
works.
And of course in the end: The work is what
it is; like us. Break a leg, knock 'em
dead, and of course: Always leave them
wanting (not more) but to become invovled
in ART!!!! -- ah, now the devious undercurrent
rears its ugly head!
Stuff
Performance Art as Art
(irreproducible)
See also -[Perf art vs Theatre]-
One of the primary distinguishing marks between performance art and
theatre must (i would say) is necessarily that of the unique
creation.
In theory we can create a repeated act and as such (even if un-scripted)
it approaches the scripted nature of theatre.
If (especially in drawing with ink or oil pastel or in sculpting marble)
once the mark is made - it's there. In painting (especially in oil
paint and any work made from a template; eg, screen printing poured
mould works, etc) then the mark can be (to some extent) revised and
re-made.
Thus, if (even if scripted) if i make a performance piece and that
it is *intended* as a unique work of art then once i "lay down the
brush" then i intende it to NOT be re-worked, modified, etc. Of course
this too is a (slight) fiction. We think here of Gorky's portrait
of the artist and his mother - which he kept slightly revising over
the years but never quite finishing.
But, if we script something and then it is performed with the intention
of it being unique then it shouldn't be re-performed (even if as tribute
to the author). On the other hand, we know that even well-known and canonically
scripted works (eg, "Hamlet") can lend to various performances at the hands
of different troups - esp in the context of the time/place they are
performed at, costuming, etc. However, i think that we should think
of one of the dividing marks of performance art vs theatre as being
their *seeable* (hearable, touchable, sensible, etc) sense of uniqueness.
Just as a copy of the Mona Lisa (made by students or artists for what-ever
purpose) will have that sense of "this is *merely* a copy". As a study,
it should be judged (eg, as part of a portfolio or as a viewed object
of the artist's work) as a copy. I would say that such a viewing is
clearly "as a copy". On the other hand, if an artist creates a pastiche
of something (eg, Duchamp's "The Mona Lisa with the Moustache" aka
"L.H.O.O.Q.") then we know that it is a "copy with intent to distinguish".
Well, that's about it for now - always a problem these "art theory"
questions, eh Chatsie?
-^_6
The Usual Suspects
Jacques Derrida
Nam June Paik
Elements
In this section: {Theatrical Expectations} (expectations)
{Catalog Elements}
{Object/Props}
{}
{}
{}
{}
Theatrical Expectations
(expectations)
In some ways the idea that the "audience" (if there is
one or even if a "passer by") expects a performance
and therefore brings with them all of the "baggage"
of theatre can be a PLUS or a MINUS. For example, if
the perf is conducted in anything close to a traditional
stage place (also remember things like: Village square,
a tribal site where specific rituals are performed in
a manner similar to that in theatre) - then the viewer/
participant are "tuned in" to the "performance wavelength".
To begin with, in classial theatre spaces (eg, procenium,
theatre-in-the-round, thrust stage, etc - but NOT the
black-box theatre) then props, stage geometry, and lighting
and even seating are part and parcel to the perf itself and
the way that we might use that space.
In the case of street/interventionist/found/black-box spaces,
we can bring the theatre expectation in (if we so wish) in
a manner of ways. The old tri-pod with cards on it announcing
the next act (eg, vaudville, burlesque, etc)
Catalog Elements
See also: -[Catalog]-
The simplest "catalog" is of course the "program"
that is handed out at theatre performances. It
lists the acts, names of the performers, and
supporting sponsors, etc.
However, the concept of the catalog is more than
that a since it IMPOSES an order on the work that
would not other-wise exist at all. Note that in
most cases a magician's act does NOT involve a
catalog or program at all. Only a "lurid" photo
outside the performance hall showing the lady
being saw-ed in half, or similar is provided.
Of course, this is the exact opposite of the
so-called "Freak Show" in circus and carnivals.
Oddly enough, i've always considered people who
find such "shows" of people who are simply a bit
different attractive or enticing to be the real
freaks. And of course in keeping with the ideas
of Community and Communitas, we would see that
the circus then becomes the performer's family.
Viz the similarity to the "Finishing School"
and the "houses" there. This is vibrantly brought
to life in Rowling's "Harry Potter" series.
Perhaps we artists are the ultimate freaks viewing
the dis-interested public as the muggles of our
world. Hmmmm. And for my next trick i shall transform
this perfectly blank (not really) piece of paper into
a picture of a flower!!! Not quite as enticising as
the strong man. Also, cf/qv: -["Shadows and Fog"]-
by Woody Allen; to me, the strangler is possibly the
most normal of the lot; hmmmmm, n'est pas?
Naming the Number of Something
(supposed to give you power over something,
similar to know the TRUE name of somone)
The most interesting thing about numbers is our
fascination with them. For example, there could
be a heated basketball game that goes into
overtime after over time and the final score:
112 to 113 would be all that matters. So much
for the idea of WINNER vs LOSER.
Odd fascination for humans, me thinks.
Regardless, certain details capture our
attention either in the catalog or the
museum label tacked to the wall next to
the art object. A good example is this,
from the Fluxus movement:
The sub-titile is given as:
George Brecht, Clothes Tree
c. 1963; originally installed in
Brecht's New York loft, re-constructed
in 1969l Painted clothes tree with
three hats, one coat, and two umbrellas,
72 x 27 x 29-1/2" (182.9 x 68.6 x 74.9 cm).
Collection of Reinhard Omnasch.
Ref: -[Barbara Haskell: "Blam!"]-
It's the *specficity* of the count that caught my
eye when i was looking thru her book. And think
about it for a minute.
We buy one of those "do it yourself" book cases.
Which ways 3/4 of a long tonne and has all of
these sorts of screws, dowels, and clips and such.
And of course there is the "catalog" - the contents
list. And (as always) that admonishment:
If some part is missing do NOT
contact the store, call the toll
free number below for assistance.
There is a drawing exercise in 2D design where you
try to create a design using just 11 (eleven) dots.
And oddly enough (or not) there is a paininting by
Alexander Caulder (best known for his "mobiles" and
"stabiles" sculptures). It's an interesting thing
to see what you *can* accomplish using just the
few dots. To me (of course as a minimalist), there
is always the DRAMA as to how the dots are arranged.
And for me (like Miro), i imagine that they have
their own sort of entertainments and "lives".
In one edition of Albert Camus' (prn: Ahl bAIR, Cah moo)
"The Stranger", there are several people on the
cover -- all dressed in black and white striped
body stockings. And each with an odd hat of a
similar design. One of the people has (as i
recall) a different coloured hat or face - they
are all with makeup as i recall). Hence: THE
stranger that can be identified just by how
they look.
Something to think about. Compare this with the
ideas in Philip K. Dick's works where at any
time a person might be questioned by the police
to see if they are "sane". The "problems" have
come to the point that people can simply become
dis-connected from normality. The tests are of
the sort of being able to (properly) explain
what simple parables mean:
A rolling stone gathers no moss.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
And of course there are (at least) two different
ways to look at these. And not being ABLE to
interpret them correctly is evidence of mental
imbalance and cause to be immediately isolated
and tested. Robert Sheckly "hints" at this in
a few of his stories, but only Dick takes it
from the realm of the terror that can arrise
when one is asked by the pollice: "PAPERS PLEASE".
This single act of identification is the basis
of much of film noir, as well as suspense thrillers.
Ohter aspects of the catalog have been explored
by -[Jorge Luis Borges]- in his works
involving libraries, or even the contents of a
person's pockets. And of course the NON-OBVIOUS
use of an object is key to murder mysteries, etc.
Thus, the catalog can include or exclude all
aspects of the performance. The lie is of course
the most outragous of all. Tacking in a note
to the program:
Due to a severe migrane headache,
the part of Lodoviccio will be
played by Hans Grueber tonight.
Or in the absurdist tradition,
Due to a mild case of food poisoing
the part of Namu the Whale will be
played by Ramma the Whale tonight.
The part of the tricycle will be
played by a unicycle tonight.
etc.
Expectations of the Object and/or Props, Sets, etc
As with many mystery stories, the use of an
object can be hidden or changed thus making
something innocent; a curved brush handle
can be used to stab the victim but later it's
heated up in a coffee pot and the end resumes
its normal and "harmless" shape.
Thus the breaking of expectations has a long
way to go to escape the burden of expectation
that has been brought to almost every object
around us by both day-to-day as well as
theatrical experience.
Techniques