Reflections on Goldberg: Living Art c. 1933 to the 1970s

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?