Kristine Stiles utilized her platform in
chapter six of Critical Terms for Art
History to explain complexities involved in performance that rendered it
impossible to be understood through traditional art-historical methods, in
addition to examining her theory of performance as a potentially critical
avenue for political and social change.
Stiles presents the theory that performance
provides a “transpersonal visual aesthetic,” which essential alludes to the
relationship between the subject and object and the relationship between
artists and viewers. (p 76) Performance is not simply a presentation of the
artist or representation of the artist’s identity and opinions, nor is it a discontinuous,
disassociation between artist and viewer or artist and object. It is, however,
an “interstitial continuum” that ultimately describes the connection of
subjects, the artist, artwork, discourse surrounding the performance, and the
audience. (p 76) As the performer commands the roles of subject and object, the
performance comments on the act that is simultaneously being acted out and
provides an explicit opportunity for connection and exchange. (p 83 and 95) The
disconnect that is often present is traditional art is eliminated as the
connection from the actual physical form of the artist through the inclusion of
the viewer in the performance is created. Thus, multiple elements are connected
through the “commissure” the performance provides. (p 77)
In addition to examining defining
characteristics of performance, Stiles explains and reiterates the social and
political aspects of performance art. She argues that not only are social and
political ideas prevalent throughout performance, they are a central factor. Essentially,
the connection performance provides where “intentionality, presentation and
representation, and the complex content of interpretation” intersect, create an
inherent platform for social and political meaning to occur. (p 95) Stiles
admits that art commenting on and influencing social and political issues was
not original to performance. Yet the use of the performer’s body as material
was much more prevalent beginning in the 1950s, which more so distinguishes contemporary
performance from avant-garde. Overall, she identifies and argues the
involvement performance plays and has played in social and political movements
and explains the social and political effectiveness of performance with
numerous examples. (p 93)
Stiles provided a concrete example of
RoseLee Goldberg’s statement in Performance
Art: From Futurism to the Present, “By it’s very nature, performance defies
precise or easy definition beyond the simple declaration that it is live art by
artists.” (p 9) The complicated nature in which Stiles defined and explained
performance supports the idea that there is not a definitive, simplistic form
in which to explain performance, which speaks to it’s inability to be confined
by and analyzed by traditional art-historical methods.
No comments:
Post a Comment