Performing vs. Performance

At the beginning of this course, I (wrongfully) assumed that performance art was just another way of talking about performing arts like ballet, concerts, etc.. Performance art could also be body art, where the artist uses their body as a canvas. A few of the individuals we discussed as performance artists were Marina Abramovic and Stellarc.

Marina Abramovic is a performance artist who puts her body in danger for the sake of art. In one of her earlier works, Rhythm 0 (1974), she laid down on a table surrounded by 72 objects, including a gun loaded with one bullet, a whip, scissors, and knives among other things. The audience was allowed to use these objects to do what they would like to her body. How scary is that? Abramovic commented on Rhythm 0. She said: “I felt really violated: they cut my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the public. Everyone ran away, escaping an actual confrontation.” I feel I would be very uncomfortable watching this piece unfold. The piece could have left her with large amounts of psychological and physical damage, but she endured it for the sake of art. People may say its crazy, but its her passion. Another project she worked on was that she sat at a table for 700 hours in silence. Patricipants then would sit across from her at the table in silence, and this was her whole piece.



Stellarc was an individual who took body art to a big extreme. For art, he had a human ear grafted to his forearm. For what purpose does someone need a human ear grafted to their arm? Just for the sake of doing it? It serves no purpose, other than maybe to scare off other individuals, but to me, this seems like an abuse of medical technology and capabilities.

Years on a painting?

Even though art is something that some people love and even make a living or career out of, I can't imagine spending YEARS to paint a single picture. This is something Vija Celmins does. She is an individual who is very dedicated to her work. To prepare a canvas for painting, she doesn't just buy canvas and paint on it, she alternates between sanding and priming the canvas over and over and over again until the canvas is completely smooth and void of any texture that originally existed on the canvas.

In the video clip we watched about her, we were introduced to a piece she had been painting for the NINTH time. Talk about dedication! She had been working on her painting of the stars in the sky for her ninth time. The image above it titled "Night Sky #10." Celmins also mentioned how she created pieces from objects she had in her home. Another common item she draws are spiderwebs. I can''t imagine the amount of patience necessary to work of a piece such as that.

Thinking Outside of the Box

Minimalism describes movements in various forms of art and design.  It came out as a result of other types of art.  It is similar to abstract expressionism in that they are both abstract.  Minimalism is literally about the materials being used and the flatness of these materials.  It is the purest form of painting through the materials; these pure forms represent nothing but the form itself.  These works appear as if they are manufactured or factory made.

An example of this use of minimalism is Pablo Picasso.  He looked at the subject from all angles and investigated the idea of form.  He manipulated the idea of space in his paintings.  These types of paintings can be hard because it is difficult to know how you feel about it or how you respond to the abstractness of it.

In Robert Ryman’s opinion, the purpose of art is to give pleasure.  One doesn’t need to know the story behind the painting to receive this feeling of pleasure.  He also notes that the painting has to look easy, like “it just happened,” even if it was hard.  He tests the paints before using them on his painting as well; before he began painting he never considered white a color.  He now finds several uses for the color white in his paintings.  I found this to be interesting because most people consider white a shade rather than a color.  It is intriguing to see how people do not pay attention to these intricate details regarding art.  I think it is interesting that once Ryman figures out all of these uses for the color white, just how he uses them and uses light to affect the way this white color is portrayed in his paintings.  Ryman states he is not involved in an art movement, but he is simply working on the visual experience.

Another type of art we discussed is performance arts.  This type of art requires control of the mind in order to perform.   Many of these performances connect to social culture.  The performing arts are defined as the actions of a person or group at a particular place or at a particular time.  There are four sub-elements of performance art.  These are time, space, body and the relationship of the performer to the performance.  These performances are not usually rehearsed, they are improvised creating this aspect of curiosity and the unknowing.  It creates adrenaline in both the performer and the audience.

Chris Burden is a performance artist that deals a lot with body art and endurance things with performance art.  In 1974 he did a piece called “Transfixed,” where he nailed himself to the back of a Volkswagen.  He has also done other things where he has had people shoot him and he has laid out in the sun with a book on him to get an impression of the book on his body.  His performances can connect the idea of ritual as part of a life culture.

Another performance artist who believes theatre is fake and the performance arts are real is Marina Abramovic.  She is constantly testing her limits to transform herself.  She takes the energy from her audience and transforms it.  She explains that not performing is just as intense as performing.  She is constantly putting hard work into her acts.  Abramovic explains that it comes down to dedication, endurance and determination.  What you are seeing in her performances is art; as an artist this is what she does.  Her work takes a lot of time but not a lot is happening.  She notes it is impossible to actually explain what she does as a performance artist.

The performing arts are different than any of the other types of art we have discussed thus far.  I find it to be so different yet so intriguing because of its unique nature.  I never thought of this idea of using your body as art like Burden does as a way of performing.  I also find it interesting that Abramovic describes herself as a boring person naturally and does a performance where she sits there for 700 hours.  I cannot imagine doing any of these things personally, especially the performances where these artists inflict pain upon themselves willingly.  I find a connection to this kind of art because as an athlete I understand the concept of working until your body is so overtired that you don’t know how it is even functioning anymore and testing your body and pushing it past its usual limits.  But even as hard as I think swimming is, some of these performances still blew my mind.

-Kristen

Is Abjection Art?

What is this thing we call abject art?  Is it really art?  Michael Wilson describes this newcomer as slacker art.  This tendency showed up in the late 80’s and continues to show its lax affect today.  Such art takes no time or effort; some pieces even take all of five minutes to put together.  These so called “artists” are pathetic and they fall short of the idealized norm, making failure his or her medium.  So, is it actually art?

Dash Snow is a perfect example of this lazy, imperfect art.  Many could not understand the importance of his “art.”  Most did not even find it to be art.  These drunk, naked photographs of him and his friends partying were shocking to his audience.  Snow accepted sex and drug binges as fine art, while the rest of the world did not agree.  His collages were tamer than his photographs but many did not understand the purpose of his work.

Mike Kelley is another artist who is associated with abjection.  Known for his stitched doll bought objects, Kelley marked the thrift store and the yard sale as his domain.  Wilson describes his collection of mangled toys, socks, grubby blankets and tarnished pet dishes as pitiful.  His “art” looks used and abused, and Wilson notes is “utterly beyond redemption.”

Both Wilson and many viewers of such pieces cannot wrap their heads around the idea of abjection.  This bizarre idea of putting such simple things together and accepting things such as drugs and alcohol as art seems blasphemous to many.  But to people like Snow and Kelley, it is art.  It has a purpose; it serves a function.  So if these photographs and random assortment of ragged objects all have a meaning to the artist, then to them it is considered art, right?  Just because we don’t see what the artist sees doesn’t mean we should write it off.  Is abject art “normal?”  That’s up for interpretation; but it’s definitely art.

-Kristen

Arts functions?

Art? Functions? At first, it didn't seem like two things that would go together. Art is just art. It's something that would be displayed at home, or in a museum, or on a refrigerator, but not something that could have a function. But the more we talked about it in class, the more it started to make sense.

Art could have personal functions for people. It could be a way to express yourself. The way you dress, the way you style your hair, the way you landscape your front yard or decorate at the holidays.

Physical functions of art could include architecture, anything that could be used to carry water, a washing machine, a weapon, or anything else that could have a physical use.

Social functions of art could include political propaganda, patriotic posters, things with a hidden message.

Art has a major role in the part of religious functions. Many religious buildings rely on statues, stained glass, and paintings to decorate the inside their buildings and make them more appealing.

Art could also connect with the sciences. Have you ever seen what things look like magnified under a microscope? Alcohol has very colorful and vibrant patterns when magnified under a microscope. Think about these pictures the next time you take a sip!

Pina Colada:

Dry Martini:

Beer:

Child Objects being Turned into art

The work of Jeff Koons stirs up a couple of mixed feelings in me. It baffles me that an artist can still be called an artist even if he doesn't actually physically create his own art, only the idea. Why isn't he known as an inventor then? He comes up with the idea, and then relies on other people to fabricate what he has thought about.


Koons takes work of others and re-fabricates them in a more artistic form. He took images such as balloon animals, inflatable lobsters and dolphins, and even an image of Popeye and revamped them into his own form of art to put on display. Isn't art suppose to be original? Unique? I find his artwork especially his hanging hearts and the finish he puts on the balloon animals to have a sleek, sexy, sophisticated appeal, but it doesn't seem very original.

Is Your Head in the Clouds?

There are three main functions of art.  These include personal, social and physical functions.  The most obvious of these functions is art’s physical purpose.  When you see art in a museum placed in a certain way or in a certain section, it is serving a specific function.  Architecture serves a physical function and is seen in an aesthetic sense as well.  Art can depict social conditions as well.  Realist painters and photographers capture these moments that can vary from war to depression to times of happiness and economic boom.  Art can be used in politics and governmental issues as well.  We use methods such as political cartoons and satire to react to these social changes and to the current events of the world.  Art can serve purposes on a personal level as well.  Artists feel in control of his of her work when they are creating it.  They have control over the way it is viewed and how people react or respond to their art.  Art can bring both order and chaos to the world but ultimately it has the power to keep us together as a species.

Jeff Koon notes art is about the acceptance of others; art comes to the world as a metaphysical process.  He composes his images on the computer and then others help paint them.  I thought it was really interesting when one of his workers noted that they use one hundred and twenty swatches just for Popeye’s fist in the first image we see.  We see a few of his pieces in the museum.  When looking at the bear and the policeman we must embrace this power of art.  There is a moral responsibility that comes with it.  We also see his piece of the boy pushing the pig.  This relates to his urge to move forward in life and to make work.  His pieces in Versailles are about detail and enjoying this intricacy of his work.  The floral piece outside of Versailles is a rare piece of work for him, but the entire thing is done so mathematically.  We see the workers placing each flower in a specific place that reinforces this idea of detail and intricacy.

Koon brings up an interesting point that although images can change and the ways of making them can change, the purpose or reason behind making work remains the same.  He hopes that his viewers are committed to making something as well and moving forward.  Artists are greatly affected by what is going on in their world.  Like Hickey, Koon feels beauty is dead in the art world and has been replaced.  Art has turned to the dark side; beauty is rougher, harsher and more in your face.  Regardless, Koon agrees that art needs to keep you thinking about the work and cause you to think in different ways.

John Baldessari, as an artist, finds the idea of painting to be redundant.  He feels there is more to art than painting, that there is more meaning.  He took all of his work he previously created and had them cremated to ashes.  He makes the joke that he made cookies out of these ashes, yet only one person ever tried one.  He also talks to us about a piece he is working on where he wants to make a brain in white with a blue background, to give this illusion of a cloud.  Baldessari describes this piece as ambiguous.  Another piece that caught my eye is when he covers the faces of the buyers and the price tags.  He describes these people as those who decide his future while he is in the studio.

Baldessari is very interested in exploring different rituals and systems that work.  He explores different visual techniques and makes them a personal function of art.  He gets bored very easily and does not like to be bored.  By working with these new systems and exploring all different types of art and techniques, he keeps himself entertained.  Baldessari notes that an artist must have a necessity to make a piece of work for their own personal function, rather than making something while being dictated by the ideas of what fine art is supposed to be.  Like Koon, he believes art should create alternate ways of working and seeing things.

-Kristen

Urinal for Art? What's Next?!

Today's society is so technology focused, even some restaurants have televisions mounted in the floor so people can watch tv while waiting in line. Can we not step away from the screen for just a little while to focus on having a meal with our families? What happened to the simple innocence of living without the hype of technology and without needing to know about everything that's going on in the world today?

What makes Thomas Struths work so special? Why is it that him taking pictures of people looking a art can captivate so many people?

In the video we watched in class, people claimed a museum made people feel at home. At home?! Pictures of people looking at you?! How comforting can that be? It may be comforting, but I don't understand the feeling of homeyness being equated to a museum.

Another comment made was art needed to be be made in the time period that you live. I don't necessarily feel that is true. What about in the fashion industry? Bringing old styles back, (sometimes) revamping them slightly, and making them part of modern day fashions. With that being said, how many completely new, innovative ideas is it possible to come up with without having some hint of the past present in any design?

And Marcel Duchamp? He took a urinal and wrote "R. Mutt 1917" and it became a world-wide phenomenon. A urinal. Something men pee in. Why? People analyze why. People analyze what he wrote in the side, the shape of the porcelain structure. Why?

-Alicia

The Consequences of Beauty

In “Enter the Dragon: The Vernacular of Beauty,” Dave Hickey proclaims beauty to be the issue of the 90’s.  Hickey does not attempt to define beauty or weigh competing theories about its nature.  Instead, he writes about the consequences of beauty, or the lack of it in the contemporary art world.

In his writing, he explains what the loss of a decent regard for beauty has wrought in contemporary art.  His main argument is that beauty is what makes the content of art powerful to the beholder; beauty is dangerous and revolutionary.  Hickey then begins to talk about Kings and how they try to control the effects of beauty by mandating exactly what can and cannot be rendered beautiful in public.  Bourgeois intellectuals try to neutralize beauty by turning it into an end itself.  Hickey notes, “They value images that promise pleasure and excitement.  Those that keep this promise are admitted to the court those that fail are subject to the king’s justice, which can be cruel and autocratic indeed...Art dealers are also like Foucault’s king in that they do not care “what it means” (Hickey 7).  As he states earlier, Hickey believes art dealers, like kings, only care how it looks rather than really caring about what the art means.  This is a corruptive way of finding something such as art to be beautiful.

As Hickey continues his argument, he talks about art in the market and in politics.  He boldly states, “beauty sells.”  Hickey also notes that there are issues with advancing images that are worth admiring.  No image is unbreakable in visual politics; every image has the potential of being powerful.  Hickey says, “The fluid nuancing of pleasure, power, and beauty is serious business in this culture” (Hickey 9).  In this case, the task of beauty is to show off and acknowledge this power that the image holds.  This inevitably creates visual pleasure for its viewers.

Hickey explains that this idea of making something beautiful is “the keystone of our cultural vernacular—the lover’s machine gun and the prisoner’s joy—the last redoubt of the disenfranchised and the single direct route, without a detour through the church or state, from the image to the individual” (Hickey 12).  However, he claims that now the route from the image to the beholder involves a detour.  This detour blinds the viewer from the beauty of the image.

I found Hickey’s piece to be intriguing yet wordy.  He presents a strong argument regarding beauty and the lack of it in contemporary art in the 20^th century.  However, his argument skips from thought to thought and his sentences are full of so much information that it is hard to follow what he is trying to say.  Hickey begins by talking about how he is sketching and improvising this idea of beauty when unexpectedly called upon.  He then moves into his argument regarding beauty and art.  From there, he gets into a lot of different topics and his writing moves quickly; I had a blank stare on my face by the end of the packet.  I personally had to go back and read through it a second time and read some paragraphs multiple times more to try to grasp his central argument. 

From what I understand, I think Hickey has a strong argument, especially regarding beauty and the art market.  People are more concerned with the money value of a piece of work and how beautiful it will look on display rather than finding the deeper beauty or meaning of the piece that is connected to the message the artist is trying to convey.  This lack of meaning and connection with these images takes away from the true beauty of art.


-kristen