Documenting Performance Art

PERFORMATIVITY OF DOCUMENTING

I have a hard time agreeing with Philip Auslander's opinon that theatrical performance is as much a performance as the traditional documented performance. It doesn't make any sense to me that someone could create a false photo and call it performance art. A great example of this is Yves Klein's work, in which he staged jumping out of a window. Sure, he created the art-this doctored photo of him jumping from a window-but he did not actually DO it, so how is it performance art? How is this not simply photography? Many people create photos like this and it is always considered photography. I do not like his comparison to the Beatles, either. How is this argument relevant? Recording music is so very different from live performance that I have to shake my head at his obvious loss of arguement. Sure, the Beatles sang the song, but it was recorded separately; this is what recording is, recording each voice separately. But did they "perform" it? No, they sang their parts. They only "perform" it when they are live on stage, singing together and interacting with the audience. Performance is all about working with the audience! Another work I have a problem with is Vitto Acconci's "Photo-Piece". (below) The author himself says, "Acconci was making art out of nothing, an art without content." Honestly, I've never heard of such a dumb art concept. Basically all he is doing is thinking about how often he blinks. He is essentially becoming self-aware. This would be great for a science project or a personal interest piece, but how is this a performance piece? How is it art at all? If I decided to do this also, perhaps some kind of spin off of his piece, would I also be considered a performance artist? Because perhaps being an artist is easier than I thought...according to this reading I could basically think of something blane and boring, do it with a photographer watching and taking pictures, and then send it to artists and say I just did a performance piece. I understand that "art is in the concept" but some things people call art is ridiculous. Most especially when it comes to performance art, I think lines are being crossed the more people do it. Performance to me should always involve an audience. If it meant for the ending photo, then it is a photography piece, not a performance.

CONNOTATIONS

I like this article because it shows how performance art is reliant on the documentary image to "prove" that it happened, and how that image can be easily faked. Anyone can say they performed a performance art piece, when all they really did was stage a fancy photograph that makes it look like a performance was done. I like how "Smoke smoke smoke" as a live performance ended up with a low resolutioned poorly taken photo as a document, and the staged photo was well taken and in higher resolution; yet, the staged photograph "masked the party atmosphere". If it's a staged art work, it is going to feel that way. The live version of "Smoke smoke smoke" was apparently performed after the staged photo was taken for Connotations. If I had to pick one for myself, I'd say I like the staged photo myself, simply because it sounds like it has a commercial feel to it, with the higher resolutions and well placed and lit smoke. But once again, this is not performance art, but photography. If I went to a performance of "Smoke smoke smoke" I'd probably prefer to see the grainy and realistic photo because it would remind me of being there. I think the photo as a document has become too much of a focus in performance art and it is drawing us away from what performance art started out as.