Saturday, September 17, 2005
The body
The late Sixties was a period of change in America (a civil-rights revolution took place while fighting a war of attrition in Viet-Nam thousands of miles away). Pop Art, Conceptualism, and Minimalism had taken New York by storm. In the midst of this commotion, a group of young artists found that they could use their bodies as vehicles to express themselves. They borrowed from Jackson Pollock's heroic gestures, feminism, neo-Dada happenings, and avant-garde theater (such as Antonin Artaud's theater of cruelty). Their aim was to bring the human body to the center of the political, social, and artistic debates. They turned into painting bodies, (like in the works of Yves Klein or Jackson Pollock), gesturing bodies (in the actions of Bruce Nauman, Joan Jonas and Eleanor Antin, or transgressive bodies, (as in the rituals of Ana Mendieta, Hermann Nitsch and Chris Burden).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
i believe that pieces which contain a social or political role are perhaps the best conceptual forms of art. to me, people should be capable of making a statement of how they feel about their government/country. along with these whippersnappers in the sixties, others were becoming ever more drastic with performances. monks in se asia were fatally burning themselves in public to show their displeasure with the government's treatment of buddhists. how do you guys feel that this compares with the pictures below?
here's a picture of the monk:
http://www.vietnampix.com/fire1.htm
Interesting photos, Josh. I couldn't stop thinking how those young faces (back in 1968) would look now.
ah, yes, i was going to mention the buddhist monks too, josh. this work really reminds me of that. the difference is that the monks weren't doing it as a form of "art," instead theirs was a spiritual way to achieve a change in government and society--a self immulation:
http://www.uwec.edu/greider/BMRB
/culture/student.work/hicksr/
it's interesting, the comparison between the artists and the buddhist monks. i think they both had the same intentions, to somehow provoke change in society, government, and, or culture. but somehow, there is a line between both acts, not because i say so, but because these people called themselves artists and what they did art work. but one could very well look at Thich Quang Duc's act as performance art.
where do you draw the line? or is there no line? does art have to be declared as art by the person who makes or performs it? or can it be declared art by anyone--the viewer? does it need to be intended as ART?
i love the rich color in the hermann nistch. it's amazing
the marina abramovic photo makes me think of a disturbing marie cassat.
Wow josh..to me that image is gut-wrenching just the thought of lighting one's self on fire to stand up for what you believe in. what an amazing protest. I feel the sixties was the most important time for art becuase it brought such a new purpose to creating art. So many strong statements were made. Because this art is so self expressive, people can easily communicate emotion with feelings of protest/society.We can look at these photos and idenitfy with what the people were experiencing. I love the Janine Antoni..talk about painting with the body!
Is it true that Nauman shot himself for this performance?
Art lover
In that performance he had someone shot him.
"Even Burden's Shoot (1971), in which he arranged to be shot in the arm by a friend with a .22 gauge rifle, and which at first glance seems emphatically counter to the rational analyses of Conceptualism, has in common with Conceptualism the fact that it is the (painfully) empirical working through of a predetermined plan. Not only that, but it now exists primarily as documentation (and what Burden refers to as "relics"), so that its material existence, as with much performance art, somewhat resembles the characteristic forms of Conceptual art." -- Art Journal
i thought your blog was cool and i think you may like this cool Website. now just Click Here
Using your own body to express your beliefs is a very powerful form of art. Your body is the most spectacular tool you will ever own. The photos of the artists in the sixties who using their bodies to express their feelings on different political and social issues are pretty incredible. The art makes a much more bold statement when you actually see a person right in front of you making a statement.
Sarah: Actually when you see what they did vis-a-vis what some artists do today it seems so quaint.
ana, thanks for that link on Thich Quang Duc. i was always curious to hear the full story behind that.
as far as designating it art...what's the difference between a guy with a guitar playing a song he wrote and the monk burning himself. nobody goes down the sidewalk telling people that the musician is an artist or what he is doing is art. it's just taken for granted that music is art because of our previous knowledge. whether or not the intention of the musician is playing to show his talent as a guitarist or to make a statement (or both) can be determined by getting into his head. either way, most people would consider it a form of art. although i doubt the monk was trying to achieve an aesthetically-pleasing flame pattern (not to make light of the situation), some may see what the monk did as a thing of beauty. not necessarily the burnt flesh or the horrid smell, but the idea-the concept-was so involved and so passionate that is could not avoid being an awesome sight.
One of the most interesting things about the original post is that there are no texts, except for the Abramovic photo. So, if one is unaquainted with the works (as I am), one tends to start imagining any and all possible motivations that might be behind them...which is an interesting mental exercise in itself!
As to the Abramovic piece--it seems sort of obvious what her goal was here-juxtapose the beauty of her music with the violence implied by the cattle bones. But i always question if this has any real effect on the viewers as such, in terms of increasing consciousness. In this age, when there is enough media reporting on wars, disasters, etc. its a mystery to me why an artwork, which is at best a symbol of reality, at worst a falsification, should have impact that reality doesn't. Perhaps the motivation was catharsis for herself, rather than impact on others. Are all artworks essentially private acts that happen to be displayed in public?
As always, I am as much interested in the interior psychological states of an artist, if not more so, as I am in their published declarations of motivation. I am not convinced that these are always the same. There seems to be a exhibitionistic quality about some of the body art, especially when it involves nudity.
In the sixties, and seventies, one can see this as dealing with the right of the individual to use their own body as they desire; the implication is that in order for a person to feel liberated in private, there also needs to be a certain amount of freedom to exhibit the body in public. But is that what these artists where thinking?
From my previous comment...
"...at worst a falsification..."-well of course, "factual" media reporting can also be this!
What's up with Ms. Antin? I'm resisting "googling" her, and trying to come up with some explanations for her work first, then see if either matches her's, if at all...
1) Her work is a rebellion against the blood, gore, etc. of the others as it's very safe, lacks any sort of violence and depicts a very traditional artistic process...
2) Her work is rebellion against traditional art, because it is quite sterile, almost cold (an ancient workshop this clean??), and exceedingly unimaginative compositionally.
Or is their another possibility?
i agree, josh
Last year I took a Pop Art class with Professor Feinstein and we had many indepth discussions about the use of perfomance art during the sixtees. I'm surprised that Yoko Ono's numerous perfomances and Fluxus movements weren't mentioned. But i do agree that it is astounding the things that people will do to demonstrate a cause, and idea, or to cause a change in beleive among a group. It is a sort of ephemeral art in that it spans only a few moments in time.. days, hours, minutes... however, it's longevity lies in its message, much like the Buddhist monks mentioned by Josh. Its memory lingers though the action has long ceased.
On a random sidenote..
Is Ana Mendieta also responsible for the piece where there was a sillouhette of a body burnt into the ground? The piece is strikingly similar to that which was posted from her. I remember that it was a strange and very mysterious piece because the artist actually tried or did committ suicide by jumping out of a building. I'll see if i can look it up.
Last year I took a Pop Art class with Professor Feinstein and we had many indepth discussions about the use of perfomance art during the sixtees. I'm surprised that Yoko Ono's numerous perfomances and Fluxus movements weren't mentioned. But i do agree that it is astounding the things that people will do to demonstrate a cause, and idea, or to cause a change in beleive among a group. It is a sort of ephemeral art in that it spans only a few moments in time.. days, hours, minutes... however, it's longevity lies in its message, much like the Buddhist monks mentioned by Josh. Its memory lingers though the action has long ceased.
On a random sidenote..
Is Ana Mendieta also responsible for the piece where there was a sillouhette of a body burnt into the ground? The piece is strikingly similar to that which was posted from her. I remember that it was a strange and very mysterious piece because the artist actually tried or did committ suicide by jumping out of a building. I'll see if i can look it up.
This is Antin's recent work. She has a body of work going back to the late 1960's early 1970's. At the time, her art was iconoclastic and more self-involved. Yes, she did perform in the nude. Some of those photos are very well-known. I'll post some. This late body of work is more like you say Dominic.
I was really taken by the photos. Photography is my favorite art form and the Ana Mendieta photo is my favorite of the ones shown because it says everything without showing more than necessary. It didn't have to show anything more than the image of death as opposed to having to show the image of being crucified (although that one is also very powerful and agree that the color is gorgeous). The one of the woman cleaning the bones also says much to me and the fact that she was singing shows how she held on to hope. As far as I understood, she never cried, and that is awesome!
Agree. Photo is a powerful medium. Yes, Lisa, that's Mendieta's work too.
I think that body performance is a successful way to express disagreement about political, social, and cultural issues such as violence, racism, and sex because it draws the attention of the audience fulfilling the purpose of letting people know the artist’s feelings. I found Ana Mendieta’s performance shocking and controversial because it explores death and violence which are subjects that relate directly to everybody.
i think i have been avoiding making a comment on these works because i have never really seen anything like this before. Initially im only attracted to the ana mendieta piece because it feels like art to me and not just a rebellion. I think that using your body for art is an obvious medium because what better way to express yourself then with yourself. these pieces make me wonder if 40 years from now people will look at the "truth against tobacco" protesters (im thinking specifically of the comercials with the millions of body bags or the people laying in the streets for each person that died of lung cancer)as art or artists. Isnt it the same idea?
Walking around naked is a statement of freedom of speech; to make it art people need to do more than just strip down and show of nature’s creation. Someone of the best works out there do involve the human body... pictures taken of parts of the body at angles to they look like landscapes, or bodies paint so they still look like there dressed. But just having the courage to walk around naked does not make your body art.
O.K. What can I say? Sometimes body art is used by people who like to be naked in front of others. I defend freedom of speech,and all my rights, but I don't have to be naked.
In my opinion Marina Abramovic's is disturbing and gross, and I don't like Ana Mendieta's, but I understand Nistch (even if I don't agree with him)who gave us his statement: "I'm a vegetarian. Eating meat is like eating a human"
Heidi
Good points Heidi. Art can legitimately elicit such (disgusting) feelings. Now, why do you find Abamovic's art "gross"? It's an interesting question to poder, particularly for an artist like you. From this critical enterprise we learn something from art.
"ponder" should read.
AT
Post a Comment