Carlson: a dialogue

JB: Do you want to start? JD: You start. JB: Okay. JB: yeah so i think that the readings really just boil down to process/performance/ happening vs. art object/finished work. JD: well i think that is really just about semantics. JB: i mean.. JD: wait, why aren't we just writing this down? JB: oh yeah. (JD hands JB computer) JB: ok so tell me what you think about these articles justing being about semantics? JD: well its just that they are all about foundations and in relation to science that is how things start, and that is fine but it is not interesting to read. JB: i agree, from my perspective, i found that the readings were uninteresting because they skimmed a lot of different surfaces, and in order to really engage with this material, i think it would have been beneficial to have read the source material, and that would have required, like, a whole different kind of course. JD: you cant be all inclusive, all you can do is name drop, but i cant think of any other way to do it, but i cant think of a way to respond to it. JB: I think that although reading that formally, I'm finding a hard time responding...but the next time I do a performance I think this reading will help me think in terms of a formal theater tradition. For example, when I think about the performance I did with Sarah, I can use these readings to understand which parts were "minimalist", like how we interacted with the audience was....in a mass watching us, but not physically engaged (traditional), but on the other hand our narrative arch did not follow a traditional narrative arch, in that it did not have a text, and repetition of movement of gesture called on, like, a certain visual art tradition, versus a theatrical one. And since I've done the readings, I've been thinking about how'd I like to create that distinction for myself personally. Like does that occur with action. Does my body, acting, relate to the body of the audience, with imagery, etc, etc. And I haven't concretes it. JD: I mean, I agree, but I feel like it's less constructive for me to think of things in terms of, "Is what I'm doing postmodern? Am I playing into all those defined sensibilities? What would Banes or Copeland say about my shit?" I agree that it is a necessary starting point. What else is there to begin with, and all of this preliminary stuff IS really important if we really want to assess what is performance- trying to actually integrate the "formal" qualities of art making into whatever art we are doing. I just think that having this varied background in the steps leading up to whatever modern sensibility of "performance art" is stifling in its jargon. JB:I think the problem is that it runs counter to what Carlson is saying performance is. This anti-art-making, process orientates thing. And I think the, um, idea of practicing the dissection of what is performance turns, we have to call it a product, into a calculated process and into a product. I'm comfortable with that academic exercise when it comes to straight theater, because the concern is about dissecting a final product, but I don't I should be so comfortable with it in this genre because it is so different and it has such different goals. JD: What do you think the goals of performance are versus the goals of theater? What's the difference, because I get the idea that the two are inherently inseparable. JB: Right now it's just these feelings for me. I can't make them tangible yet. And I agree. I think that the relationship is really close. And the relationship between performance art and visual art are really close. JD: I mean, I definitely see that in terms of Man Ray. I mean his process was very per formative, cutting shit apart, making Dadaist statements about the roles of the art product, but at the same time he did do 2d art. JB: Yeah. And I can see how installation art and sculpture are lumped together with p art. And I think seeing those relationships for myself will help separate where performance art and theater are in my mind. JD: I'm interested in this Foreman quote: "Theater attempts to infuse the audience with some imaginary idea or emotion." I mean, despite this larger objective, which is still undefined for you and I and whatever that means for our performances, isn't performance art doing the same thing? I mean, isn't that what art is all about? Just because an audience is a little less disenchanted doesn't mean you can supplant affect. Viewing art and interpreting art is subjective and people build stories and people rely on the idea of "theatrics". JB: the big thing in theatre is the Aristotelian model, or, a response to that model. everything that happens in theatre is based on that model or is trying to respond to it, whereas, in performance art, there is no response or need for the Aristotelian model. i can bring that lens to it while viewing a performance art piece, but that just isn't what performance art is concerned with... is there anything else you wanted to mention? JD: fuck you. they shot rice. i don't know, make something funny. (yawn) (sigh). KEREM OZKAN: go suck a dick.