I really admire
Joseph Beuys for his incredibly thoughtful and enigmatic actions. Goldberg
makes a distinction between the aggressive, outwardly-motivated artists of the
60s, and those who worked more introspectively, “to capture the ‘spirit’ of the
artist as an energetic and catalytic force in society.” (144) Of the three
artists she names from the latter group, Beuys is the only artist who did not subject
others’ (women’s) bodies to the
artistic process in order to achieve emancipation of the ‘spirit’. In so doing,
the other two artists, Klein and Manzoni, had created and held a palpable bond
of control over these bodies as catalysts, and, especially in the case of
Klein, did so in front of a passive, one could even say voyeuristic, audience
to further establish this bond. (145-6)
Instead, by
subjecting his own body to the arduous process for the sake of bringing
awareness to his idea of the “emancipation of the ‘spirit’,” I believe that
Beuys expresses a magnitude of humility comparable to the work of later
performance artists, namely that of Marina Abramović. Goldberg quotes Beuys as
saying, ‘We have to revolutionize human thought. First of all revolution takes
place within man. When man is really a free, creative being who can produce
something new and original, he can revolutionize time.’ (149)
Abramović has
reenacted Beuys’ How to Explain Pictures
to a Dead Hare, and she refers to the artist, in this way, as a shaman.
“The artist has not only to develop his physical body, but also his mental
body. He has to have some sort of spiritual connection to the public and his
own work. That generates a strong aura. And [Beuys] had a strong aura.” She
continues by explaining how it was not necessary for Beuys to acknowledge his
own presence in his performances, because he had the ability to infuse them
(i.e., the material within the performance) with his energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment