Jessica Wildman
Performance artists post 1959, specifically after Allan
Kaprow’s 18 Happenings in 6 Parts were
creating work that was, “thrown together by the press under the general heading
of ‘happenings’” (p 132). I think the manifesto dictated movements like Futurism
and Dada that preceded performance art of this time misguided critics and
perhaps audiences into the preconceived notion that all art must be defined and grouped
as it had been in the past. This “grouping” occurred, “despite the very different
sensibilities and structures of these works” (p132). Is it commonplace in the
art world to categorize and classify work? Is this a matter of digestibility
for critics and audiences?
As the chapter’s title suggests, “Living Art c. 1933 to the
1970s”, discusses a time when performance artists used aspects of everyday
life in their work; however, the artists working during this time had different
motivations for turning to performance. Goldberg explains that Jim Dine’s
performances were an “extension of everyday life”, while Red Grooms, “considered
his performances essentially as theatrical events”, and alternatively Al Hansen
used performance as distancing itself from, “the complete absence of anything
interesting in the more conventional forms of theatre” (p128). Collaboration remained an important
constituent of many of these seemingly disparate artists and their
performances, and as Goldberg explains that they had New York City in common (p
132).
I found it particularly interesting to compare the ideas of
Kaprow versus those of Carolee Schneemann. In regard to his performances Kaprow
explained, “the actions will mean nothing clearly formulable so far as the
artist is concerned”. He also expressed that “happening” as a term was, “something
spontaneous, something that just happens to happen” (130). Schneemann on the
other hand, sought meaning in all places or sites where performances were to
happen, all people, and materials. I agree that these elements all have the
power to become conceptually charged and referential when considered
interdependently in a performance. Of her performance Meat Joy Schneemann explained, “taking substance from the materials…means
that any particular space, any debris unique to Paris and any “found”
performers, would be potential structural elements for the piece” (138).
Dancers became even more involved in performance art during
this time. It was especially interesting to read that many dancers who had
started their careers in a traditional context had found the art world to be, “more
responsive and understanding” (p 138). The collaboration between professional
dancers and performance artists seemed to result in a symbiotic relationship
between the two that ultimately expanded the performance art field. The Dancers’
Workshop Company took their performances to an outdoor setting, and I wonder,
as we discussed in class, is this yet another rendering of primitivism to
modernism?
No comments:
Post a Comment