The nature of performance is that it IS witnessed. And yes, the
performing presence is a role that in itself questions and invokes
other roles, including the role of the audience. The witnessing
includes the audience who witness the encounter, and the witness
opposite the table is part of the performance. And who is to say that
this "demonstration" is simply about reputation? Can you be so sure
that those people photographed were just turning on the tears because
it was expected of participating in a show with a well known artist at
MOMA?
All this stuff about threat is interesting. Why were people threatened?
xA
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Catherine Daly <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I can see how it being smaller would have lessened the sideshow atmosphere.
> It was, to me, not about the artist being present, or being, or being with
> another (after another, after another, in the huge snaking line around the
> artist and the spotlights and the cameras). It was very much a performance,
> and beyond that, to me, a show or demonstration, not of being, or of
> presence, but of being a well known artist with a retrospective at MOMA, and
> witnessing that, and being witnessed as that.
>
> I was looking for her artist statements online, and found comments from the
> reperformers instead, how threatened they felt by many of the people (who
> often touched them), and how the viewers felt threatened. Also how many of
> the reperformers did so for a boost to their careers.
>
> I am now wondering not about the cushion, but about the table and the lack
> of a cushion on the other chair.
>
> There are a couple of journals and presses that print anonymous works only.
>
> --
> All best,
> Catherine Daly
> [log in to unmask]
>
--
Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
|