Tuesday, February 19

READING RESPONSE

so one of the points that stood out to me in the readings came from the section on performance and contemporary theory that touched on the ideal "post-post-modernism." mostly, i was into this qoute from barbara adam:


"Instead of the implicit binary code inherent in the prefix 'post,' we need code combinations, code syntheses, and neither-nor approaches, we need to embrace the future--contingent, ambiguous, uncertain, multiple--and use temporally open concepts that do not re-embed us in the conceptual mode of 'either-or' choices."


i'm really interested in how we can engage in "code-switching and syntheses" to better establish a certain level of ambiguity in our performances. I think that performance art has a history of confrontation and shock-art that overshadows the potential of more subtle/ambiguous pieces.

another aspect of this quote that i think is really pertinent, is this idea that we cannot simply reiterate the normative codes that we are attempting to deconstruct.

oh, and how about this:

ROB BANKS at

2 comments:

Lauren said...

From the first bunch of readings, I think I found the Kaprow article the most interesting because I disagreed with it the most. It seems to me that such stringent rules for a performance (or a 'happening' as the case may be) is kind of antithetical to the idea that it is simply "happening". Of course it's impossible to remove the performative from a performance of any type, but why place restrictions on how often something can "happen", where it can happen, how it should happen, how people should perceive it happening? The first rule set forth states that life and art should remain indistict from each other. Life is a performance, that much is certain from a sociological (if not aesthetic) perspective--but there are (basically) no temporal or spatial limitations to how people interact socially or internally. Who's to say a "happening" should only be performed once? Where is there room for formal improvement and evolution of an idea in that situation? Overall I think this article raised a lot of questions in my mind about the difference with which I treat my daily life and my performances, where the distinction lies, and whether or not I should maintain that distinction. I don't really subscribe to the pretense that life and art can exist as one; art has a feeling about it, a performative or aesthetic sensibility, that everyday life may or may not have. Maybe that distinction is entirely internal, but every performance is a performance for someone (Carlson?)...whether that audience is myself or somebody in the cafeteria or one of you guys.

Honestly, I was a lot more interested in the Carlson readings, especially the chapter on Postmodernism. I actually had a dream about it last night in which Nash and I were conceptual/aesthetic terrorists attempting to reestablish modernism and minimalism to art in advertisement. Kant attempts to set up a modernist aesthetic theory that champions universal subjectivity--a complete oxymoron in and of itself--and other modernist philosophers and theorists map out formal blueprints for how to return art to its "essence", its underlying universal "truth". Postmodernism strives to deconstruct those so-called truths and reveal the psychosocial frameworks with which we make generalizations and biased decisions about beauty and correctness.

As performers, how do we function? In directing ourself or others in a space to elaborate on an idea, are we creating a modernist or a postmodernist attitude? The formal qualities of modernism and postmodernism confuse me a little bit...is emotional gesture a modernist concept, because it indicates a universal subjective concept? Does postmodern performance necessarily build off of modernist concepts and find a way to visually subvert them?

More in class, I guess.

February 22, 2008 at 12:42 PM
kim.vorperian. said...

What stuck out most to me within the Carlson readings was the emphasis that is put on the body.
I've always had this definition of performance art floating around in my head that described it as simply being something along the lines of Goldberg's description, "it is live art by artists". I recognize that there are a number of things "wrong" with this statement, but still, it was what my original thoughts on the matter where. Performance art = live art, and that was my only criteria.
After reading the Carlson chapters I found that the body's role in performance art is a major one. Body Art has popped up as a very interesting facet of performance art. Now I am trying to incorporate the idea of the expressive body where "the artist's body becomes both the subject and the object of the work" into my working definition of "performance art". The idea of "verb and subject" becoming one is intriguing. Especially when taking it into the realm of "real-time activity" or "life-art". I find that the relationship between art and life could use some co-mingling. Kaprow might have been a little militant with his criteria for "happenings" but I think it is a really interesting concept on the problematic relationship between life and art. I feel like drawing from Kaprow's example, even if not following his exact rules on the matter, seems really beneficial to the art world in general. I think Lauren is completely justified in her reasoning on the matter, but there are always multiple ways of looking at the same thing. This is something that I think might be beneficial to talk about in class. Even though it is kind of an ungratifying mental masturbation exercise in the long run. I just kind of want to hear everybody's thoughts on the matter.

February 24, 2008 at 7:12 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)