Thursday, April 5, 2007

Performance art can be a real force!

Marina Abramovic can provoke people! Want a proof? The following thread, which I've sampled for you from artblog.net (in our list of art blogs), shows how viscerally individuals can react to performance art. It all sort of begins when the blog's moderator takes a passage from my Sunpost article:

For The Lips of St. Thomas (1975), Abramovic sat at a table, eating a kilo of honey and a liter of wine, then proceeded to cut a five-point star into her stomach (with a razor blade) and whip herself until her body felt totally numb.

Franklin: Supergirl commented, I know guys in the Air Force who would do that for a dollar. Well said, my love.

As people start posting comments, there is this comment (referring to Abramovic), from an art teacher at one of our local institutions!

Opie: With all that wine and honey she didn't need a star, she needed a drain.

Or this one from a participant -whose job is described by another commenter as "snide and dismissive in tone:"

Jack: Well, you get the idea. Any connection, real or imagined, to the Abramovic stunt, I mean, performance, is purely coincidental. Far be it from me to impugn such an extravagant exhibition of pretentious, pointless posturing.

Believe it or not, they make no distinction between performance art and stunts. So, I try to explain performance art from a historic point of view:

AT: Performance art has a historic context: the civil struggles of the 1960’s in the USA and Europe, the Vietnam War, the Cold War. For these and other reasons (that we can argue some other time) the body became a locus for artistic experimentation… I don’t think that artists like Burden, Ono, de Maria, Schneeman, Beuys, Acconci, Nauman, Nitsch, Pane, Rossler, Mendieta and many more, were doing just stunts. On the contrary, I’d say that they lived at a time when the exploration (of the possibilities of the body as art) became an imperative: The body as (simultaneously) object and subject; body as transgression (the Viennese Actionists), as sex prop (Schneeman, Ono), as caricature (Nauman), as ritual (Abramovic), as political satire (Rossler), etc, etc. After Existentialism and Humanism (and the Holocaust, Hiroshima, Vietnam, and Pol Pot), all these artists explored valid questions: Is the body essential component of the self? What’s gender? What’s a female? Is the body more than representation?

This is the response I get from the same art teacher:

Opie: Justifying the elevation of such activities to the status of art by cooking up long lists of names, events and philosophies liberally spiced with current artspeak trend terms and unnamed "experts" is not intellectually responsible, no matter how many others are doing the same thing. In my opinion, anyone who buys this nonsense has lost the ability for self-determined judgement of art.

It did not matter that I produced a long list of texts by scholars on performance art (later, my comment inexplicably disappeared from the thread... coincidence?). It seems more like an empty exercise in derision and contempt, than a substantial reasoning of why they hate -or for that matter- write off performance art altogether as a legitimate art movement. I particularly single out this comment (for a person who even has the candidness of admitting she/he hasn’t seen Marina’s performance):

KQ: I haven't seen 'Lips of St.Thomas', but watching a sniper's process of executing his target 2 kilometers away with 1 shot is a performance I'd spend $$ to see...

Later, the moderator of the blog retorts:

Franklin: However, if some guy in the privacy of his home decided to carve a star in his stomach for expressive purposes, we might fairly advocate some mental health care for him.

Even after I left the thread (the discussion had already moved from the original topic to a rummaging of sorts; ad hominem platitudes, etc. Some Marc County adds:

Marc County: That's funny, I suppose, but... what argument does AT believe he is referring to? I mean, Deleuze and Guattari themselves could show up here, and I bet it STILL wouldn't amount to a real argument, any more than AT's pugnacious comments do. Seriously, these fundamentalists all sound the same to me, so sorry, it's all just more fodder for ridicule, like this... the true-believers refuse to let their dream die, truth be damned.

Frankly, I didn't know I was a fundamentalist! (which is why I have artblog.net in our page?)

The last in the thread is from (none other than a) composer of new music and a performer himself (whom I've seen, shirtless and donning a cowboy hat, riding an amplifier as if it was a horse, while making a noise piece), one whom you'd guess can understand what performance art is all about (he misses no opportunity to take a stab at our Art Issue class):

Rene Barge: Here is Pomo at its finest, perhaps those who teach “issues” can include this in the curriculum.

Poor guy, cannot even understand that some of the music or the art he makes has the stamp of a time and place written all over it.

My Conclusion? Performance art is a real force!

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

The post is a mockery. AT I don;t know how you have the stomach to let yourself be dragged into that kind of situation. Franklin's blog is a waste of time.
J.

Anonymous said...

Agree with J, it's a combination of bad faith and bad luck. The guy left Miami and now what? He keeps looking back. A pillar of salt!

Franklin said...

Heh.

Here's the deal: Nothing in my original post took issue with anything that AT said. I know, amazing, but true, if you care to read it. Also, nobody asserted or even implied by their behavior that they, we, me, whatever, "make no distinction between performance art and stunts." My point was actually pretty benign: there's not a lot of material difference between that particular Abramovic piece and behavior that a certain military type is given to, and that I, personally, was talking to an audience that is broader than the usual knowing enclave of art worlders.

I used to tell my students that there was only one mistake they could make in my class, and that was to mix me up with an idiot. So when AT showed up on my blog, addressed me as "boy", said that my "heavy-handedness" was "playing me for a dummy", and gave me a lecture about the history of performance art that I didn't need, I replied with my characteristic disregard for nonsense and the people that perpetrate it. You see, AT's "Performance art has a historic context" lesson doesn't address the only possibly controversial point that I made: that without an art context, "Lips of St.Thomas" is indistinguishable from other kinds of self-abuse. I pointed this out to him, Opie pointed this out to him, and he still wouldn't address it. So we started skewering his pieties. We are joined by our loathing of pieties.

For all your teacher's fine personal qualities, when it comes to art, in many ways he is not living the examined life. I have on more than one occasion asked him to clarify what he's talking about, and he won't do it, because to do so would mean admission that he is invested in absurdities. This is his affair, but it's a shame because his considerable erudition ought to be doing more for him than it does. Like when he concludes from this exchange that "performance art is a real force," when nobody was suggesting otherwise. It's like he got run over by a blue car and his realization is that some cars are blue.

At any rate, I'm glad to see that Artblog.net has the power to provoke, and thus enjoys the same validity granted to Abramovic. Thank you for reading.

A.T. said...

You see, AT's "Performance art has a historic context" lesson doesn't address the only possibly controversial point that I made: that without an art context, "Lips of St.Thomas" is indistinguishable from other kinds of self-abuse.

Is this your "new" point now, F?
Perhaps a few hours of rereading have helped a bit your careless responses. But I find your change of heart equally sloppy. Self-mutilation is not necessarily a condition that implies or expresses mental illness. It all depends of the intention motivating the act. What distinguishes that solitary boy (with a past of sexual abuse) cutting his wrist with a blade is a lot different from that Shia worshipper, thumping himself on his way to the Imam Ali shrine, or the Hindu hermit fasting for a week to fight his temptations. Why should Abramovic's acts be any different? Her performance explores a “ritualistic” side of art, which is not that different from religious or ecstatic experience in primitive cultures (Abramovic herself communicated this to me). Her intentions are not directed at hurting herself compulsively, in order to cope or to relieve a mental disorder . So, there goes your feeble point. Try again (and harder).

Le Samurai said...

And that was his controversial point.

Franklin said...

Is this your "new" point now, F?

No, it's the old one. 1. Point out where anything I said in the above comment contradicts anything in the original post.

Perhaps a few hours of rereading have helped a bit your careless responses. But I find your change of heart equally sloppy.

The only sloppy thing going on is your generalizing what I wrote into a caricature: "Believe it or not, they make no distinction between performance art and stunts." 2. Point out where I conflated all performance art with stunts.

Self-mutilation is not necessarily a condition that implies or expresses mental illness.

3. Point out where I claimed this.

It all depends of the intention motivating the act.

That is, in the case of Abramovic, to use the act as art, and thus inserting it into an art context. 4. Explain how this contradicts "...out of its context, the [Lips of St. Thomas] above becomes a dumb stunt."

What distinguishes that solitary boy (with a past of sexual abuse) cutting his wrist with a blade is a lot different from that Shia worshipper, thumping himself on his way to the Imam Ali shrine, or the Hindu hermit fasting for a week to fight his temptations. Why should Abramovic's acts be any different?

5. Explain how the above sentences differ from "Without an art context, 'Lips of St. Thomas' is indistinguishable from other kinds of self-abuse."

A.T. said...

Franklin: Words have a context, I mean the context of the whole post (including comments and remarks of the many participants). My responses are not limited to you, I interacted with a bunch of people throwing different ideas and asking different questions. That's why I don;t get one comment, but a series. So, I pick this other sample:

F: And if they explored the questions, why does nobody ever talk about the answers they came up with?

Opie: This is all just one dreary artspeak cliché after another, really.

F: No, nobody talks about the answers because "exploring questions" is a bit of art world jargon that correlates poorly with any real phenomenon.

Marc County: I'm glad to report that one doesn't have to be a professor of physics from New York University… even an evolutionary biologist… to see clearly through this type of horseshit.

F: I know a whole bunch of guys who would participate in just about any artistic feat. Especially if it meant they could get laid.

The context of these remarks portray performance art as stunt (whether pseudo event, as self-abuse, less than a phenomenon or whatnot). This context is what I respond to; a series of rejoinders “in time,” which get their meaning only if seen in their original succession. Go back and think again.

Marc Country said...

I love it! AT got served at Artblog.net, so he took his ball home to Art 106! "Take that, you big dumb Artblog meanies!" I'm sure your arguments stand up better here, when you're not challenged so much, and you can make up the other side's responses...

Hilarious. I mean, pathetic for a professor of art (seriously?...), of course, but hilarious to me! Thanks.

"It did not matter that I produced a long list of texts by scholars on performance art (later, my comment inexplicably disappeared from the thread... coincidence?). It seems more like an empty exercise in derision and contempt, than a substantial reasoning of why they dislike -or for that matter- write off performance art altogether as a legitimate art movement."

You're right here, AT. The length of your list don't mean jack shit. Duh.

But, you're wrong here too, AT. Your comment did not disappear 'inexplicably'. Franklin explained what happened in comment #50. Tsk Tsk... more intellectual dishonesty from AT.. no surprise.

You're right once more, AT. Conversing with you is precisely "an empty exercise in derision and contempt". You've merited nothing more.

P.S. Thanks for quoting me some in your post. Yep, you are a pomo fundamentalist, fer sure (why do you think having Artblog.net on your blogroll negates this, somehow?). You are also an arrogant blowhard... "Go back and think again". Ugh. This, from someone who doesn't respond to what people say, but rather, um, "This context is what I respond to"... Yikes.

What an intellectual fraud... Disgusting, really.

Anonymous said...

Ohmy, this guy MC cannot be more pathetic.
J.

A.T. said...

Poor Franklin! Now comes this M.C. and explicitly disregards a list of historians and scholars such as John Gray, Peggy Phelan, Adams Hugh, Bonito Oliva, Jorge Glusberg, Jon Hendricks and Henri Adrian (which probably he hasn’t bother with reading a single line) as “jack shit.” As if his inanities would carry more force because of the tone of his delivery.

Franklin said...

In that case, AT, you concede that 1. my comments above are consistent with my earlier remarks and not somehow "new," that 2. the assertion that I "make no distinction between performance art and stunts" is false, that 3. "self-mutilation is not necessarily a condition that implies or expresses mental illness" is irrelevant, and that 4. (including #5) my thoughts about context and this particular piece are not different from yours in any way that you care to describe.


I said earlier, "I have on more than one occasion asked him to clarify what he's talking about, and he won't do it." The above is yet another example.

The context of these remarks portray performance art as stunt (whether pseudo event, as self-abuse, less than a phenomenon or whatnot). This context is what I respond to; a series of rejoinders “in time,” which get their meaning only if seen in their original succession.

So do I understand correctly that you're saying that the individual remarks don't claim that all performance art is a stunt, but their aggregate does?

I want to point out to your students the maneuver here. Faced with specific questions, AT declines to answer any of them, and then retreats into ambiguity: He's not talking about me, he talking about a few people; he's not responding the actual remarks, he's responding to the "context of the remarks." (I'm about to have some fun with this, because it doesn't mean anything.) And then he adds:

Go back and think again.

This is an especially nasty little jab, simultaneously questioning my cognitive powers and sending the message that I have failed to address his points when in fact he has failed to address mine, numbered above. This is why the charges of intellectual dishonesty stick. But more importantly, anyone not getting along in this class is going to want to watch out for this stuff.

Rene Barge said...

My response was legitimate, I believe that Leslie Hall makes great performance and it ought to be included in contemporary thought, otherwise known to me as “issues.” Although she has not been explored in depth, as in she has not met contemporary approval, I see her work fit for contemporary discourse. A real challenge for those whom consider themselves fit for such a task. I am not one of them; I like to look at good painting and the challenges that come with looking at good painting, as well as I like to paint and the challenges that come working with paint. Further more, I spend a great deal of time working with sound. A great deal of it happens to be installed within spaces. I am well aware that time and place is “written” all over my work, aware being the key, whether it is in a bar, museum, art gallery, hall, studio, or home. Painting is for looking and sound is for listening, “written” is far too grammatical and that gets in my way.

Yes I have worn a cowboy hat, boots and other such things, and I’ve blasted spaces with sound. Every time it has been a stunt, a prank, etc. And, every time I do not follow through with it, the skinny’s and shirts leave, too bad. I do not wear performance art or new music, and I do not carry cards, or any card for that matter. My work with sound and paint is within a tradition that has been around long enough, I just happen to be furthering the adventure.

To assume that I am “a poor guy,” is inaccurate. In fact, if you choose, you may take on Leslie Hall. I find her a lot more relevant at the present, within our culture, than Abramovic. You may also find that your students may in fact relate more, in terms of her place and time.

A.T. said...

Here is Pomo at its finest, perhaps those who teach “issues” can include this in the curriculum.

Rene: 1- What’s this thing with “Pomo” and in which manner is this related to me or my points expressed in the thread? 2- In which way is (1) related to the fact that I should include this person that you talk about in my curriculum?

Rene Barge said...

Here Is Po mo at its fi nest , per haps those who teach “ is sues ” can in clude this in the cu rri cu lum.

art student said...

After reading the post over at the other blog one can tell that this guy has an issue with you Triff. First he comes here his comment on Abramovic, then he posts his comments and your responses over there. At first you can't tell if he's serious. Then a bunch of guys attack you for a word you mispelled. Then he takes the joke to the very heading of his blog. Then he comes back for more... WTF!

Rene Barge said...

I apologize for the error in my previous comment. I am in a position of cut and paste as I am working with “glitch.”

Pomo is a mess of questioning with no answers and I happen to find Leslie Hall’s performance befitting. I do recall, in Audience #17, “We don’t eschew any topic from our discussions and you and your friends are more than welcome to pitch in.” This is how I pitched in.

I will not have time to check back as I will be off, however I hope that at some point in time you can explain addressing people as “boys.” I cannot tell if it is a custom or if it is defensive.

A.T. said...

Art student, someone who identified herself or himself as "Audience member," expressed something very close in substance to your remark. His/her comment summarizes anything I'd say in response to F.’s repeated efforts at taking back the discussion to a “sanitized” or “neutral” point as if outside of artblog.net. See that this indivudual is acquainted with Franklin’s blog:

"Boys" as in: boys' club, good ol' boys, etc. Very appropriate. As one of the intended audience (one of those not in the club who does read occasionally), I must say this makes a poor show... [Not] very interesting to see chums ganging up on someone Franklin has already demonstrated that he has personal issues with...[By] excerpting the conversation from Alfredo's class blog and posting it here, in an obviously hostile environment, Franklin himself established the tone of the discussion. Alfredo is not to blame for the heated remarks... [As] ever, Marc Country and Jack are snide and dismissive in tone while opie's own is indignant and belligerent. Franklin's posturing claims a moral high ground he in fact does not occupy. [In this I do not accuse Franklin of being unethical, but of being disingenuous.]…As for the Enlightenment, artblog.net's relationship to the period is more like characters in a moralizing genre play rather than a group of ingenious thinkers.

A.T. said...

Rene: If as you put it, "Pomo is a mess of questioning with no answers," why do you use it in the context of addressing my comments or my curriculum? Isn't the burden of proof on you to justify that before bringing it up? As for “poor” it may have been an unfortunate choice. I meant someone who lacks something, namely, the proper perspective of understanding how to use a messy term in a discussion. You’re more than welcome to come and talk to my "issues" class of this or any subject. I think it would be instructive for all of us.

Franklin said...

...someone who identified herself or himself as "Audience member," expressed something very close in substance to your remark. His/her comment summarizes anything I'd say in response to F.’s repeated efforts at taking back the discussion to a “sanitized” or “neutral” point as if outside of artblog.net.

If you say things that are wrong, and you can't back them up when I challenge them, then the problem is that you're wrong, not that I'm trying to do something to the discussion involving "neutral" in scare quotes. (I'm open to hearing what that second sentence means, because I have no idea.)

But I believe you when you say that Audience Member summarized your thoughts, because he never took issue with anything that was said. He complained about tone: snide, dismissive, indignant, belligerent, disingenuous. His problem was with style, not with substance.

And this is what I think you mean when you say "This context is what I respond to." I expressed my thoughts in manner characterized by doubt and disrespect. I doubt certain efforts in contemporary art and I disrespect certain ideas it puts forward. That's my perogative. And it wouldn't be a problem, except that fundamentalism only has two requirements: belief and proper behavior. You cause major problems in the world of a fundamentalist by exercising doubt and disrespect, even if what you're saying is factual, logical, and supported by evidence. In fact, those last three qualities just makes it all the worse for him. You see similar outrage when creationists talk about evolution, or when radical Muslims talk about freedom of speech, complete with the appeals to texts and high-sounding but blurry ideas.

The top of this blog says "We encourage pluralism and diversity of opinions." And it's largely true, I would guess, except that there are some things that won't be countenanced. We all just witnessed what they are, and how they're dealt with.

Rene Barge said...

AT

I did not use it in the context of addressing your comments or your curriculum. I addressed it towards anyone who is teaching issues. I do not feel burdened to justify that Pomo is a mess of questioning with no answers. Pomo, as a notion, has done that on its own. I do not feel that I lack the proper perspective of understanding how to use a messy term in a discussion. My stance is that Leslie Hall is Pomo at its finest. Anyone can choose to check her out, or not. Anyone can include her in their curriculum, or not. And she would be an expert at cleaning very delicate costuming.

I do not believe that the ArtBlog is representative of a bunch of good ol’ boys. Or, boys as a generalization. I do believe that many of those who frequent the ArtBlog cut through a lot of visual fat. I appreciate that very much, as a person who works with paint and likes to look at painting and its history.

Thank you for the invitation to talk to your issues class, however at the present I am refraining from panels, visits, talks, etc. I am immersed in my work. Obviously, except for this moment.

A.T. said...

I do not feel burdened to justify that Pomo is a mess of questioning with no answers. Pomo, as a notion, has done that on its own.

Rene that's cool. I think you've explained that eloquently. No problem, man. Do your thing.

Audience Member said...

Franklin, I do have a problem with the substance of your remarks on your blog. I thought it was clear. I'm sorry for not making it plainer for you, but in such a venue (artblog.net), the effort is essentially worthless.

Artblog.net is not open to dissent on any type of conceptual, critical or theoretical topic.

Franklin said...

Artblog.net is not open to dissent on any type of conceptual, critical or theoretical topic.

If that was your point, all you had to do was say it. But now that you have, let me answer this way:

I have long preferred feeling to concept and practice to theory. If it makes any difference, that's not a principled stance, but an experiential one. I've spent time in front of many thousands of works of art, seeking the best, and trying to figure out what makes the best work tick. I've observed that while theory and concept touch upon all artworks, putting them in front of feeling and materials is a bad strategy if you're trying to make really good art.

It would be arrogant to say that there is no possible case against that, but it would be silly not to subject such a case to a review of its reasonableness and responsibility. People with sound arguments don't retreat from specificity to ambiguity (and from ambiguity to silence!) when pressed. In fact, they go the other way.

So I'm open to dissent, but I'm not open to sophistry. If somebody thinks I'm wrong, it ought to be possible for him to put together a solid case for what he likes or believes. It need not be perfectly logical (this is art, after all), but it ought not be outright fallacious. And if his case withers under scrutiny, I think he ought to reflect on that, but it's his affair. In any case it's on the record that there are some widely accepted ideas out there whose bumpers fall off when you kick the tires.

A.T. said...

I have long preferred... practice to theory.

Sure...

Webster defines "theory" as: 1- the analysis of a set of facts in their relation with one another, 2-speculation.

I propose that my selection below, of some of your comments in this thread, begins to look like a theory.

I replied with my characteristic disregard for nonsense and the people that perpetrate it.

I have on more than one occasion asked him to clarify what he's talking about,

He's not talking about me, he talking about a few people…

…questioning my cognitive powers and sending the message that I have failed…

And it wouldn't be a problem, except that fundamentalism only has two requirements: belief and proper behavior.

People with sound arguments don't retreat from specificity to ambiguity

I'm not open to sophistry.


How about "fear of error" theory?

Franklin said...

Fear of error? With all due respect, if you're the one trying to establish that I'm in error, then I don't have much to fear.

Anonymous said...

Performance art can be a real force.

Can all this be considered a performance?

A.T. said...

Not quite. As Abramovic explained in her lecture, performance art requires performer(s) and the public. Photographs or a video of it are documentations, not the real thing. This thread is definitely “performative,” and as you can see, it has very funny parts in it.

bILLermo said...

AT I have long preferred... practice to theory.

Sure...


putting all webster aside, to me it read practice as action and doing opposed to theory as overthinking ,overconceptualizing or over analyzing.

i would much prefer enjoying a piece evident of the fruits of artistic labor rather than listen to anyone go into great detail on the complicated theoretical social experiment somehow apparent in x art piece.

Practice FTW!! who reads dictionaries anywayz

your philosophy class was my favorite btw!

Jessica said...

Bravo Triff!