Sunday, 9 December 2012
Wednesday, 24 October 2012
tiny acts of repair 1
Tiny acts of repair – notes post performance
Sewing kits
Repair
Temporary fixes and
Hotel freebies (the pointlessness of the free kits you get in a hotel, tiny
needles, a small amount of thread, buttons – what could you possible hope to
repair/fix with this?)
Studio – fingertip threads
Action sewing fingertips. Just do it.
No record. Then write it as a log. Detail as a stream. Document fingers from a
personal hand held camera perspective after event. Keep threads.
Prep – of space and materials
Needles make
do and mend/feminine/my mum/to fix something. The domestic. Temporally bound or
darned. Care. Renew and refresh. Mother binding, restriction, to love too much.
Wound too tight.
Thread
Scissors
Paper
Pen
Camera
Action
Sit and sew
Collect threads
Document fingers
Write tiny acts of repair
Small (w)holes. Floss. Clean away
Tiny gaps. The bits we can’t reach…or
see.
Evaluate
Just this. No video. No performance and
action in a space. Private
Tiny acts…. what
is it about??
Connecting
Connection
To hold/retain
something - the failure of that
Fragility of hold
something
No blood
Too tight
Bond
Smother
Connect all
fingertips. Threaded. Not a violent action.
Careful, precise,
controlled.
Exam conditions.
Improvised.
In the space for a
set amount of time to explore the materials.
thoughts.....
Current research on the work and methodologies of Sandra Johnson has
directly fed into my studio practice. I was extremely excited by her direct
strategies for making involving totally private, undocumented ‘sourcing’ of
material for performances and her approach to documentation [1].
(further details of specific examples of Johnston’s work will be
discussed in the case study)
My studio experiments sought to explore the enactment of a ‘solo’,
private action that was undertaken with minimal materials and a simple
direction as a starting point. I consciously did not plan an outcome but rather
placed materials in the space (needles, thread, paper, pen, table, chair and a
small hand held camera) and explored the materials with the actions lasting as
long as necessary for it to be complete with no particular time frame. The
actions were very simple and consisted of using the needle and thread to sew
through the tips of my fingers on both hand then immediately afterwards write a
log of the experience. I then documented my hands using the small camera and
removed the thread from my fingers. I then sewed the log together.
I also decided not to record the action whilst it was taking place
as I felt this was intrusive and emphasized the observational nature of
viewing. For this piece I wanted to be inside the work and therefore wanted to
explore alternative ways of documenting and recording the action. I wanted to
respond to the previous evaluations of the performance platforms by removing
the element of ‘performance’ or rather performing specifically to an audience
and explore a private action which was self contained in both execution and
documentation.
I wanted to find a less observational method of documentation. For
both previous performance platforms I had other people take photos of my performing
body. This created an image, an observational recording – usually at a distance
– of a moment, which had occurred. Most of the images also comprised the/my
whole body/ self within it – a complete distortion of that which I was
experiencing. For ‘tiny acts of repair’ I only wanted to document that which I
could see, my fingers, my hands, the thread the needle the tables edge – the
images are not the best quality as they were taken with one of the hands which
had already been ‘sewn’. Again I wanted the image to reflect the action, from
my point of view and impeded by that which had cause for the image to be taken.
Previous comments regarding the documentation of my work had been
the observational nature of it had inherently caused a distancing for the
viewer – you were seeing a ‘set’ completed image – what could be added to it? I
wanted to begin to address this through the images in ‘tiny acts of repair’ by only
revealing fragments and never fully seeing the whole action, that is not taking
an image of my whole body, seated in a chair, performing the act. This was an
action not a performance…….expand. (relation to the current use of the word “action/akion”
implying an immediacy, that this is real – happening now, to a body and
therefore demanding of your attention…..)
This attempted to address the theatrical conventions that were
present in my pervious performances and consider the distancing mechanism that
were present within them. With this current experiment I wanted to connect
directly with the materials and allow for an image to form rather than have a predetermined
image in my head that I was working towards creating. This opened the work to a
new level of interpretation – something, which can be built upon, and more
explorations are undertaken.
WIRAD exhibition and symposium– June 2012
Tiny acts of repair
(1)
tiny acts of repair
(1) is the first of a series of works resulting from ongoing
practice and research; current influences include the work of Gina Pane and
Sandra Johnston. Tiny acts of repair
explores and exposes what constitutes the private through the use of materials,
mundane action and public spaces whilst challenging the presence of
‘theatricality’ within performance art. Through
the enactment of intimate rituals, the piece acknowledges the unseen, seeking
that which is unnoticed and challenging what constitutes the ‘private’.
The photographic images and written log document a
recent performance action.
Photographs x 3 - -documentation of first
performance action
Written log
Needle
Thread
Table
chair
The image and brief outline above displays the presentation of ‘tiny
acts of repair’ at the WIRAD symposium. Three A1 images of documentation from
the initial performance experiment in the studio along with the table and chair
used in the performance and the written log placed on the table, viewers were able
to sit on chair and read the notes on the table made after the action had taken
place.
Upon realizing the work in a gallery space I immediately wanted to
explore more images – enough to fill a wall and a new way of seeing the action.
Seeing more images would also allow for the display of varied documentation –
possibly blurred images a quicker, less precious approach to documenting the
action.
A full wall of
images. Fragments becoming a whole?
Large images of
details filling a wall.
To engulf the
viewer.
Rather than invite viewer into the space whilst the action is
occurring seeing the documentation. Important considerations on how this
documentation is presented. How can that presentation continue the meaning making/exchange
within the work and the viewer and continue/extend the performance/action
ideas.
When considering how to present the documentation from ‘tiny act of
repair’ I remembered a quote from Kristine Stiles when discussing the large
paintings of Mark Rothko. She considers why the artist chose to paint such
large images (this is also applicable to the recent Hockney exhibition at the
Royal academy, summer 12, and a TV documentary interviewing Hockney he
describes his recent work painting extremely large canvas in situ in the woods.
Placed within a gallery environment the viewer is overwhelmed by the image to
the point of standing too close made you dizzy and unable to see the entire
parameter of the image….expand – example quotes…..). The scale of Rothko’s
work, rather than intending to imply a sense of grandeur or pompousness sought
to be intimate and human. This may seem a contradiction however ‘to paint a
small picture is to place yourself outside of your experience……to paint a
larger picture you are in it”. [1]
(expand)
This notion of finding a moment of intimacy within the presentation
of a large image made me consider my own documentation and how this could
reflect and induce a particular state within the viewer. I felt incredibly
intimate in the moment of creating the action, close to it and focused on every
tiny movement. I wanted to somehow translate this through the documentation to
the viewer. I was interested in the idea of the viewer rather than feeling ‘outside’
of a small or single image but being engulfed by the mass of images within a larger
space - to become immersed within a
large detail. I wanted to leave space for them to image the action occurring by
not presenting an observed image of my whole self-performing the action in a
space.
For the WIRAD exhibition I felt that some
of these realizations came a little late and the presented work was not wholly
successful. The presentation of only 3 images didn’t really fill the space and
therefore didn’t really convey a sense of scale possibly leaving the viewer
still at a distance. For future work I would like to address this and explore
scale and multiple images to greater effect.
However considering feedback from the previous performance pieces it
was the images, which depict the details or the fragments of materials that
drew the viewer further into the work. Why? Could be because the image is
unfinished, left open to interpretation it allows the viewer to participate in
the making of meaning. As opposed to the observational image, the documented performer,
which keeps the audience at a distance as it offers a completed, freeze of the
action. I felt I took this on board within the presented work at WIRAD.
This experience left me re considering
where my documentation or rather the decisions I make regarding the
documentation places the viewer? Inside or outside the work – drawn into it or
left at an observational distance?
(What is the result of other performance
artists and their documentation – Gina Pane and her very carefully planned
documentation to the point of impinging on the viewers’ experience).
Future developments/research– context for practical discoveries.
Theatricality – what is it?
What do I mean by theatricality?
Is it present within performance art work –
both my own and in the work of key artists?
What is its value, meaning and effect in my
practice and in that of others?
I am interested in how the
presence of certain theatrical strategies/conventions may or may not be present
in contemporary performance art. In light of this how these identified
conventions may impact upon key states .
These thoughts led to the formulation of a new research question.......
Environment and intimacy in the elision of
theater and performance art.
Initial thoughts/research points.....
Live art, and more importantly to my investigations, performance art
has for a long time cited its practices within a visual framework, defining
itself against the traditions of theatre and often rejecting theatrical
conventions such as conventional narratives and representation. Historically
and critically performance art practices, due to the visual nature, claimed to
have a greater affinity with a fine art context as opposed to theatrical
genealogies. Yet performance art practitioners such as Carolee Schneeman, Gina
Pane, Marina Abramovich to name a few often use performance itself as a method
of destabilizing the conventions with the visual arts therefore placing
performance and the associations surround it within highly slippery ground.
Beth Hoffman in Performance
Research suggests that Live Art, particularly within the UK, has a history
of “ breaking with the Theatre” the term
‘breaking’ inherently suggests a rejection of and movement away from theatrical
histories and conventions. [1]
However performance art by its very definition and use of the word ‘performance’
suggests a complex relationship yet distance towards theatricality; it is both
related to and yet removed from the associated dialogues of theatre.
Recent discoveries within my own research and the witnessing and
participation of contemporary performance artists within local and national
platforms have raised questions as to the authenticity of this view.
Is there really such a division within visual based practices and the
presence of theatrical formalities such as audience positioning, lighting and
the structure/presentation of the work? (pre-rehearsed? Durational? The impact
of improvisation?)
What is the impact of such formalities within the performing and
viewing experience and how does this impact upon the state induced within the
audience? That is the state created or induced between the person who makes the
art and the person it affects whether that be joy, intimacy or unease. Does the
presence of certain theatrical conventions evoke a sense of disengagement?
A recent article in Contemporary Theatre Review by Lara Shalson
begins to discuss the complicated dialogues occurring within specific self-professed
‘live art’ practitioners and how their practice works with rather than ‘breaking’
away from, the conventions of the theatre. She looks in great detail towards the
work of Forced Entertainment and the impact of duration within performance
works. Shalson considers the connection, prevalence and complex relationship of
theatre within Live Art.
However for the purposes of my research I would like to turn attention back towards
the work of specific performance artists whose work is perhaps too readily
associated with a self conscious turning away from that which may be associated
with the theatrical. I am tempted to suggest that the relationship between
theatre and performance art, particularly today, is more complex and inter-dependent
rather than a simple rejection or movement away from a particular form. To
borrow a phrase from Peggy Phenlan performance ‘clogs the smooth machinery of
reproduction as part of its ontological resistance to reproduction.[2]
(Does performance art today still resist reproduction? Is the experience as 'full' as it should be?)
How does the discussion of the presence (or lack of) of specific
theatrical conventions within performance art affect our experience/understanding
of the work?
What is the impact of such conventions on the use of materials? In
particular materials, which inherently house or share an affinity with the
anti-theatrical nature of performance art. for example materials used by
artists such as Gina Pane and Sandra Johnston which present the viewer with
functional, familiar objects/materials such as milk, wire, shoe laces etc and
are used in a non-representational context. (expand)
Shalson in her article in uses durational performance and the use of
endurance as a specific aspect of performance to navigate and destabilize the
debate of theatrical presence within certain Live Art practitioners. I would
like to consider other performance strategies, such as improvisation, the environment of the performance and the
use of material and trace as an extension and continuation of this research.
I am interested in the ways in which my practice along the work of
certain performance artists induces particular states within the viewer, in
particular states of intimacy or closeness, vulnerability and unease and
whether of not the presence of particular theatrical conventions confirm or
deny such states.
Shalson’s thorough investigation of the work of ‘forced
entertainment’ considers how to address and use theatrical conventions such as
rehearsal, mimetic repetition and the representation of states, such as death,
can be used to investigate theatrical strategies within live art. In essence practically pushing these strategies to
their limits to reveal the inner workings of those theatrical techniques.
(quote tim etchells??him uses theatrical conventions to unearth
themselves….becoming performance that is/was always there.)
Shalson suggests that there is “an enduring distinction between
theatre and performance art” [3].
Theatre V’s Performance art is not a new debate. Jon Erikson in his article ‘performing distinction’ in Performing Arts
Journal contradicts Shalson in discussing the difficulties of distinguishing
performance art from theatre. He states that it is “impossible to distinguish
performance art form theatre” that they are intrinsically linked. However he does suggest a specific exception
in the ‘literal and experiential character of endurance and body art’. [4]
He goes on to suggest that it is the lack of illusion and traditional
role-playing that sets this particular strand of performance art apart. Body
art and its literalness present actions that are not mimetic but are understood
to be ‘really done’ therefore asserting the literal over the metaphorical. That
the distinction between theatre and performance art, as cited by Erikson,
occurs because of the latters ‘realness’ and essential anti-theatricality .[5]
However I would argue that my experience of recent contemporary body
based performance art does not separate itself from the illusionary strategies
associated with theatre as clearly as Erikson suggests, that perhaps the
literalness becomes diluted. This will be further explained with key examples
later in the research (tempting failure – piercing – unseen actions and
rehearsed strategies/social media and my practice – in contrast to
improvisation/SJ work etc)
Is this ‘literalness’ often built upon theatrical expectations?
Artifice - in considering recent performance works at 'Tempting Failure' (performance space March 2012)– the hidden pins on the palm of an artists' hand, which created the
wound (the artist repeatedly struck her chest until a red, raw wound appeared)– were we supposed to believe the wound was created due to the repetition
of flesh on flesh? After speaking to several audience members and through my
own experience I only realized how the marks were made after reading the ‘non-published’ list of requirements for performance which indicated that fine
pins were fixed (unseen) to the palms of the performers hands. This made me
feel cheated – why not state explicitly how the marks were made? (expand........)
The ‘behind the scenes’ piercing of various performer's bodies - as an audience member I was blind to this literalness and in essence
the pivotal point of the ensuing performance – we are shielded from the moment
of impact and only permitted to see the aftermath. I am questioning what do we
really see and what is being assumed as real? The state of uncomfortability,
which was induced in me watching the previously mentioned performances, wasn’t
because of the work itself or the literal nature of the actions but because of
the lack of explicitness in the
presentation of those actions. I felt excluded and to an extent manipulated
(because the work was trying to make be feel something/trying too hard to
affect me) and this made me uncomfortable. Why? Because of the expectations I
held within the parameters of performance art. I was expecting ‘realness’ not
artifice or representation.
This experience made me question the status of the actions I was
witnessing and whether illusion was actually still present. Did the
performances I witnessed and those which I made and performed really “approach
the real through resisting the metaphorical reduction of two into one” that is,
did they reject representation or was I really witnessing and participating in a
performance representing itself, our at least a reproduction of our
expectations of it. [6]
(could this provide an explanation as to
why a certain state was induced? Disappointment/emptiness a desire to be filled
more?)
(reputation of performance art today?
Performing itself…)
Shalson, in summarizing performance arts
“entanglement with anti theatricality” and suggesting “an inability to get away
from a discomfort with that which is deemed ‘theatrical’ “……ongoing debate,
intersection btwn theatre and performance art…….”theatre as something all
performance endures”. CTR pg 119.
Consider theatricality in an established
performance artist work?
(Marina Abramovich at the Manchester
international arts festival – relished in its theatricality! also discussions within 'the artist is present' - expand.....)
Ensuing questions…..
What makes one performance artist or piece
less theatrical than another?
How does the use of materials impact upon
this?
Why is this important? Important to my
research into performance lexicon and specific states because of how it
does/does not affect that state. Give specific examples through artist case
studies and my work. ?
[1] Hoffman, Beth, ‘Radicalism and the Theatre in Genealogies of Live
Art’, performance Research, 14.1
(2009) pg 104. this point was cited by Shalson in
[2] Phelan, Peggy unmarked; the
politics of performance. (London and new york: routledge, 1993, p 148.
[3] Shalson, L – on the endurance
of theatre in Live art, CTR, pg 107.
[4] Ericson, Jon Performing distinctions, PAJ:A journal of performance
and art; 21.3 (1999) 98-104. again Shalson mentions the relevance of Ericson's argument wthin her discussion of Live Art.
[5] (expand – see Nicholas Ridout, stage
fright, animls and other theatrical problems, Cambridge uni press, 2006)
[6] Phelan, Peggy unmarked; the
politics of performance. (London and new york: routledge, 1993, pg 152does
my work fit in
tbc...........
[1] ‘Sourcing’ a term used by Sandra Johnston to describe the way in
which she gathers material in order to generate a particular series of
performances. Information taken from an online interview with Brian Cattling, European Live Art Archive – ELAA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)