Self-Portraiture/Self-Other Dynamics

WHAT IS PERFORMANCE?

I like how Carlson uses so many different definitions of "performance" in general to show how complex and fluctuating the term "performance art" really is. One thing I had been a little confused about going into the reading was how daily life figured in to performance art, because to me, essentially everyone plays a part of someone else. We all act differently for different people, to the point where it almost seems that we lose our true selves. For instance, this project we are doing soon...several of the people I talked to wanted to make their performance piece a showing of their true personality. They seemed to think that they needed a project to hide behind to actually do what they felt was true to their personality. Carlson says that there is a difference between "doing and performing" which comes down to attitude, but I disagree. After reading her opinion, I feel more solid on my own. Carlson's point that some things are done without thought and therefore not considered performance, does not make sense to me personally. In our society, people put on faces so much that it becomes part of us. Any learned behavior we project without thought is just another sad indication that we are afraid to just be ourselves. The more we hide who we are in public, the more we forget who we are at home. The performance is always intentional, it just is used so much that it becomes second nature. Essentially, we are always acting for an audience, even if that audience is ourselves when we look in the mirror.

BENEATH THIS MASK ANOTHER MASK

I am interested in this idea of the photo as "death" that is represented by Jones in this chapter, especially in relation to self-portraiture. One thing I am interested in exploring is the difference between film and digital photography in relation to this topic. One quote Jones used really caught my eye: "the photograph is a screen, the site where subject and object, self and other, intertwine to produce intersubjective meaning." In a regular photo this might be true because it is an actual tangible piece of paper that is kind of like a physical remnant of a person, caught with light on photo paper and preserved. But digital photography seems different. You are not preserving anything but pixels, and the pixels are part of the compter, alive essentially, in the computer and on the web. Therefore, your picture in pixels is a more live representation than a photo in general is, and the issue of death is compromised. Also, regular photographs are expensive and painstaking, and each produced photo is a rememberance of a person that can be kept after their death, but digital is much easier to take and so many photos may exist that after the person dies you could practically animate them into a video, living and moving and active, keeping the person alive in pixels and in motion. Below I have uploaded a series of photos I took when I got my new camera and then posted the pics on facebook:

I have dozens of photo albums like this. My facebook is much like a daily photo diary. I am still frozen in time in the pictures, and the person watching is, though now viewing through a computer screen rather than a photo surface, still reanimating me as they view me, but since the photos are not a phyiscal remnant in which to be trapped, I feel these pictures are an alive and functioning version of me, almost near to live video of my life through the computer.

Lynn Hershman Leeson

LYNN HERSHMAN LEESON

This article on Leeson's work I think brings to light an old idea that inventors invent new things because they see a need and try to find a way to fill that need. Leeson spent the better part of her life manipulating images because she obviously found it more meaningful than basic photography, and at the time there existed no way to manipulate images on a computer. Her early works had a sense of realness to them, in that the original images were physically touched and rendered by her own hands. There is a quality of inventiveness to her work in the beginning, especially with her use of paint. Each mixed media work started very basically with a photograph but the rest was made completely by her own hands as if she were a painter instead of a photographer. One example is the picture of Roberta below:

This can hardly be called photography, even though it does start off with a photo in the beginning. This is very similar to what we do in the digital age today...we start with a photo and then manipulate it into a piece of artwork that can hardly be called photography any longer. This prompts Glenn Kurtz to say, "Soon no one will be a photographer." Kurtz seems to feel a loss when he describes Leeson's work, because she moves into the digital works and loses her individuality as a mixed media artist. But I think that Kurtz is too married to Leeson's earlier works and I find this irritating as an artist. He may have liked her earlier works, but every artist has the right to change styles without saying they are less of an artist for doing so. Leeson at heart was always a mixed media artist, and now that the technology exists, her true self as a creator can be realized. I would think that this would be a freeing thing for Leeson and should make Kurtz excited at what she will come up with next. Granted, her cyborg photos were a little lacking in comparison to her original works:


but I find them interesting in that she is experimenting with computer art in ways that are completely new to her, and still managing to work within the new ideas and contexts. As for her strict photographic manipulations in the "Phantom Limb" series, I actually really liked her photography, even more than her original creations. Her originals seem chaotic and almost abstract, while these photos are straight to the point. I think the loss that Kurtz sees is their commercial value because they are all print and the themes are so obvious:
which is a dominant theme in commerical photography. But instead of criticizing her like Kurtz, I see her growing as an artist and I find her new avenues adventuresome and brave for someone so new to the technology. In her recent works, she is planning on doing a piece on Second Life:

In all, I think Kurtz is seeing a loss in Leeson's work because she has new technology available. When things are harder, one finds a way of doing what you need to do, even if the outcome is not what you see in your mind. It is only after the technology comes available that you are finally able to do what you've always wanted to do. This I believe is the case with Leeson, and her works will continue to evolve as she learns new technologies and factors them into her work. I find her adaptable and changing and this to me means artistic freedom and should not be criticized. Eventually I think we will find that Leeson will go back to a more physical relationship with her works, only because she will get bored of the new technology and will want to change it herself again.

WORKS CITED
http://www.lynnhershman.com/


ROBERTA BREITMORE

"ROBERTA represented part of me as surely as we all have within us an underside; a dark, shadowy anaemous cadaever that is the gnawing decay of our bodies, the sustaining growth of death that we try with pathetic illusion to camouflage. To me, she was my own flipped effigy; my physical reverse, my psychological fears."

I found this article disturbing, because it shows once again that "art" has a fine line inherently whithin it which many refuse to acknowledge. The term "art" has become so broad that just about anything one does can be seen as "art", especially when we are speaking of performance. In many pieces I've seen in the past, especially in video, filmmakers will reveal a side of themselves that is dark and sadistic or raunchy, and display this openly for the camera. In a sense, the term "art" gives them an avenue, an excuse if you will, to act out on desires and to test boundaries that no normal person should or would do. As long as there is a concept behind the work, the grotesque is allowed to happen. It's gotten so ridiculous that I wouldn't be surprised if some day somebody decided killing was art, and they openly display murder in a gallery or on film. Technically this is against the law, but what if we were to go a little more grey area and I were to say, as an artist, that I thought abortion was a type of art? What if I were to take a small camera, since the technology exists, and insert the camera into the womb to record the death of an innocent child? Now what if I were to display this in a gallery as an installation piece that reacts to movement of the gellery goers (since that technology also exists now) and each time a person walks by, the baby gets killed? Am I an artist, or a sadist? Am I both? Am I to be considered an artist at all?

"For years my daughter denied she was related to me. People assumed I was schizophenic."

This is a very disturbing quote by the artist, because it shows manipulation of the mind. The mind is very inflencial on the spirit, and we must guard what we do with it or it can affect us forever. People assumed she was schizophrenic? I'd say she was! Or if she wasn't, she was adjusting her mind into the state which eventually she might be clinically considered to be schizophrenic! She was taking her "art" into the realm of mind manipulation, like her brain was the canvas, and suddenly "art" has crossed the line and become destructive. Her ealier quote:

"ROBERTA represented part of me as surely as we all have within us an underside; a dark, shadowy anaemous cadaever that is the gnawing decay of our bodies, the sustaining growth of death that we try with pathetic illusion to camouflage. To me, she was my own flipped effigy; my physical reverse, my psychological fears."

is not talking about an "alter ego"; she's talking about the flesh, the Satanic influence that all of us have inside of ourselves when we are not saved by Jesus Christ. By allowing herself to embrace this flesh side of her soul, she is injuring herself more and more and leading herself further and further into that flesh, or as she puts it, her "alter ego." The more she encourages this behavior, the more schizo she'll become and the more fearful and depressed she will be.

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.

Vito Acconci

I've decided to do my project on Vito Acconci because in past video classes I've seen his video work, and found him creepy and disturbing. When I saw him on the list I thought I'd see what kind of performance works he's done.

VITO ACCONCI

Vito Acconci, born in in 1940, started his art career as a poet. He is quoted in the book American Artists on Art from 1940 to 1980, saying: "I think that when I started doing pieces, the initial attempts were very much oriented towards defining my body in a space, finding a ground for myself, an alternative ground for the page ground I had as a poet." Even though he had started as a fiction writer, Acconci crossed over to poetry after seeing a painting by Jasper Johns, which was a piece that started with something normal and forgettable and then was manipulated, and the art critic Kenneth Burke, who mentioned the importance of the viewer in any art piece and how they influence the outcome (Jackson). After this, Acconci chose to persue poetry, and in so doing, learned the value of space on a page. He become more interested in the space than the words, creating finally a piece called "DROP (ON THE SIDE/OVER THE SIDE)" which is a page of a thesarus, but with the words removed from the center, focusing the viewer onto the space within it instead of the words on the page. (pictured below)

(Jackson)
From his poetry, Acconci began moving more and more into performance works, feeling restrained as he did by the size of the page. As he says in The Believer, "I was starting to recognize a corner I was driving myself into: that all writing could do was refer to things that had already been written. I’m making the margin, but the margin of a book that already exists. I was having this exhilaration at, but at the same time horror of this recognition that I’d driven myself into the world of only books. This is a world of the previously written, and maybe I don’t have to add to it, maybe all I can do is measure it." Once he realized that writing was restrictive, he began branching out into performace, but still using his poetry. In one piece he read lines of the poem while following a person with a typewriter, who wrote what he said, and another time he did a poetry reading where he said one word at a time, crossing the room once per word read. More and more his art inched off the page and into the spaces of the world itself (Jackson).
One of Acconci's first performances that truly broke from poetry into real space was "Following Piece". In this work, Acconci followed passers-by in New York, without them knowing he was doing it. The idea was to show the relation between public and private space, since although he was on a busy street in New York, he was singling out one certain person, following their every whim and making it his own. He was in a sense, showing how each person, though part of the masses, has their own life, their own agenda, and their own separate thoughts and feelings which drive them. All these separate lives are usually lost in the bustle of crowds, but Acconci was pointing them all out again. He followed people every day for a month, recording the events through photographs and writings and then sending them to artists in his area (Zbikowski). (Pictured below)
(Jackon)
Acconci's work did not stop with "Following Piece." His many performances after it were all based around the tumultuous times, and many of his works were controversial. One piece, called "Pull" consisted of himself and a woman, and all he did was circle her while eyeing her, and she him. The idea was to reflect the rise of feminism during his era, and how the male figure is threatening to women even though he is just a man sexually drawn to a woman and it should be a normal thing to be expected (Larson). Works like "Seedbed" in which he masterbated under a bridge while speaking out loud his sexual desires about and to the audience, continued to observe the difference in public and private spaces (Larson).
Vito Acconci has proven himself to be an extremely versatile artist. Starting off as a fiction writer, branching into poetry, and finally deciding to observe different spaces, he has made himself into a well-known and respected artist. He now works with installation pieces and architectural spaces, making as he says, "alternate worlds." (Jackson)



WORKS CITED
1.Johnson, Ellen H. American Artists on Art from 1940 to 1980. Westview Press, 1982. Pg. 232.
2. Jackson, Shelley. The Believer. "Shelley Jackson Talks with Vito Acconci." Dec 2006-Jan2007 ed. Sept 17 2008.
http://www.believermag.com/issues/200612/?read=interview_acconci.
3. Zbikowski, Dorte. Ctrl[space]. "[text]Vito Acconci."
http://hosting.zkm.de/ctrlspace/d/texts/01?print-friendly=true.
4. Larson, Kay. The New York Times. "ART IN REVIEW; Vito Acconci -- 'Performance Documentation and Photoworks, 1969-1973'." 9 Feb 2001. 17 Sept 2008.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE2D71531F93AA35751C0A9679C8B63

A Life More Photographic

Throughout this article, an argument is slowly built that the modern digital "snapshot" has lost the indexical quality of photography, because the physical photo to paper has been replaced by digital pixels. In this loss, the snapshot has lost identity as a piece of artwork, and has become instead forgettable and unoriginal, generating a new identity as a type of "stock photo" in which tags have led to each new snapshot becoming just like another before it, a way of communicating between the picture creators through tags and comments rather than a new piece of art.

Personally I am seeing this as a bias from a writer that has studied photography in London College of Printing (1) and though he has done research in new media, he is older and out of touch with the changes in media that someone more my age would see. Growing up in this new culture, I see digital art as a new type of photographic media, not forgettable at all, and certainly not, like a stock photo, just like all the other digital snapshots before it. Rubinstein is seeing this new wave of photography from his basis in fine art photography and assuming that new art photography should be tied back to old art photography in order to have worth. While it is true that digital photography has lost indexical quality in the sense that physical light no longer reacts with paper, the camera is still seeing light to create a picture, whether there is a physical chemical reaction or not.
My further reasoning leads me to believe that why should this be necessary at all? In this new digital age, why can't the idea of the photo in the old sense die, and this new digital identity become a new way of creating art? Just because it is easier to snap a photo does not mean it is no longer art to create it. Anyone can pick up a pencil, but not everyone can draw, and the same goes for digital art. So there are a few people that have digital cameras just for the immediacy of creating memories...so what? There are many more artists that have digital cameras and are using them to create real art. In a few years there may not be such a thing as a dark room any longer. Does that mean that phototgraphy as an art has died? No, I say it has been recreated, and indeed, improved. Photography has always been on the rise with technology. It was a huge discovery in the past age when it was first created, and it took a long time for a photographer to learn how to use the bulky cameras. Does this make him more of an artist than currnet digial artists, just because it took him longer to learn how to use a camera? Certainly not! Technology has improved, and photography as a medium has changed, and evolved into something new and fresh. I don't think we can look at photography in the same way as we did before. This new medium is much more exciting and has many more possibilities than it did before, because we are no longer restricted by bulky new technology. Now anyone can create a picture, anywhere at any time, and art can take on a new face because more people now have access to it. Who knows where photography will take us in a few more years? A whole new, interactive art has emerged, and I think we are yet to embrace it properly.







Works Cited
1)London South University. 14 March 2008. 12 Sept 2008.
https://phonebook.lsbu.ac.uk/php4/curriculumvitae.php?id=4556&template=ahs&divtemp=aam