If you were one of the lucky ones who sat face to face with Marina Abramovic during her marathon sittings—some 10 hours long—at New York’s MoMA in 2010, you might now find yourself in The Artist Is Present, a documentary by Matthew Akers which opens in the UK this week. People smiled and cried and stared; so did Abramovic. “The hardest thing is to do something which is close to nothing,” says the film poster, quoting the artist.
I have had my own encounters with Abramovic in the past, and once took part in a workshop she directed. We all wore white coats. There were slow walks, breathing lessons and therapeutic exercises. At the end, I wondered if a light colonic cleansing might be afoot. Last year, at the Manchester International Festival, I watched her life retold in Robert Wilson’s epic theatrical extravaganza, The Life and Death of Marina Abramovic, starring the artist herself, and now set to go on a European tour. Marina suffers at the hands of her mother, and seems to die not once but three times.
Whatever extremes Abramovic has gone to in her art, sometimes whipping and cutting herself, others have travelled further. There have been the extremes of 1960s Viennese Actionism, with its blood orgies and dead cows and sexual excess; and the silliness and self-indulgences of 1970s California performance art. Both movements predated and inspired Abramovic’s outre, alarming and sometimes gruelling performances. In 1971, the US artist Chris Burden had himself shot in the arm by a friend; the following year, in Deadman, he lay under a tarpaulin on the highway, illuminated by flares, as the night-time traffic roared by. Artists have had themselves suspended from the ceiling by fish hooks and stood naked in the filthiest of Chinese public toilets. They have cut, burned and excoriated themselves with no less vigour than medieval saints and penitents.
Photo: Reuters
Suffering for your art is one thing; suffering as your art is another. When artist Ryan McNamara and collaborator Sam Roeck buried themselves up to the neck in the grounds of Robert Wilson’s Watermill Performance Center in upstate New York last year, and sang love duets to one another (“Tonight” from West Side Story and Dolly Parton numbers featured on the playlist), they were both accidentally trodden on and kicked in the head by a clumsy audience member. This much-reported incident became an inadvertent part of the performance (performed as part of Wilson’s 70th birthday bash), and it is difficult to see their pain as anything other than comedy. Samuel Beckett would have laughed.
Performance art no longer looks like a gallery sideshow, an add-on to the museum experience. In two weeks’ time, Tate Modern will launch its new Tanks space with a 15-week festival of live performance, installation and film and video works; meanwhile British-German artist Tino Sehgal, who has worked with singing gallery attendants and performing children, is the next to take on the gallery’s Turbine Hall. Tate describes the Tanks as “the world’s first museum galleries permanently dedicated to exhibiting live art, performance, installation and film works;” but the institution is only catching up with what artists have been doing for a very long time. Performance, in fact, is now where it’s at; it’s hard to think of much recent art that isn’t, at some level, performative.
And who cares about genre any more, anyway? The collaborations between artists and dancers and composers that made New York so vital in the 1960s were no mere historical blip. Younger generations of artists have taken their cues from the freedoms and opportunities different media, and different disciplines, have afforded them.
Photo: AFP
The proliferation of performance in museums has a lot to do with both art itself and the changing role of these institutions, as well as the demands of an audience that wants to feel empowered, engaged and participatory. Today’s spectators demand a role, whether they are inventing their own performances in the gallery (both Olafur Eliasson’s and Ai Weiwei’s Tate Modern installations seemed to invite all kinds of unexpected audience behaviour), or clamouring to take part in artist-led workshops such as the Hayward Gallery’s on-going Wide Open School. We want to be active, rather than passive spectators. Perhaps this is merely fashion, but I suspect not.
Wander any “immersive installation,” and you feel like an actor. Walking through the nether regions of an Elmgreen & Dragset installation, or one of Gregor Schneider’s haunted houses, or a show by Anri Sala, you are not always sure if some of the people you meet aren’t paid plants.
This doesn’t mean you can’t just go and look at a painting or a sculpture any more; it does mean that you frequently find yourself surrounded by objects that are themselves the residue of some kind of performance. This is as true of a Jackson Pollock painting as it is of the little brown miseries contained in Joseph Beuys’ vitrines (which were often the tokens of his earlier performances). It is true of the props and stages left in a gallery after a Spartacus Chetwynd performance.
Most art, in any case, is the result of some kind of studio-bound, solitary performance. It doesn’t matter whether that performance involved wearing a hat and holding a palette and brushes (Goya, in his 1790-1795 self-portrait), or, as in a performance by Simon Fujiwara about his dawning sexuality in Cornwall, south-west England, getting an erection in front of an abstract painting by (Cornwall-based artist) Patrick Heron. The presentation of art works, of history, is always a kind of staging.
Performance can be mystifying and magical, troubling and captivating. Tino Sehgal’s performances, or those of Sharon Hayes, make us think; Hayes’s confrontational performances sometimes mimic political demonstrations, a mix of theater and protest. The rhyming couplets and video-plays of Mary Reid Kelley, with their daft costumes and makeup, are as much performances as stories on film. Somewhere in there is a kind of truth. Artists have backed into the theatrical, and into performance, into dance and play-writing while attempting to do other things.
One might talk of a choreography of objects and spaces as much as of people in Martin Creed’s work, and even Roman Ondak’s queues and crowds of the performing public become dance-like in their utter simplicity: people form a queue, or fill a room and then leave again.
A couple of weeks ago, at Documenta in Kassel, I was disarmed and disturbed watching Belgian choreographer Jerome Bel direct a troupe of actors—all of whom are mentally challenged in one way or another—step to the front of the stage, one by one, and stand there in silence for a minute. Time lengthened and contracted, for the audience as well as the performers. Later, among other requests, Bel got each of them to name their disability, as best they could. Then they sang, they danced, they said what they thought about Bel’s piece.
Was this theatre, art, a “freak show” (as one performer reported her sister saying after watching one performance), or something else? It was an exercise in real presence, of difficulty and empathy, focus and lapse. It was very moving. Private rituals and public acts, catharsis and confrontation are the central strands of art as performance. The work is the beginning of a dialogue, not an end. It is something shared. We are all performers, even when we are playing at being spectators.
In late October of 1873 the government of Japan decided against sending a military expedition to Korea to force that nation to open trade relations. Across the government supporters of the expedition resigned immediately. The spectacle of revolt by disaffected samurai began to loom over Japanese politics. In January of 1874 disaffected samurai attacked a senior minister in Tokyo. A month later, a group of pro-Korea expedition and anti-foreign elements from Saga prefecture in Kyushu revolted, driven in part by high food prices stemming from poor harvests. Their leader, according to Edward Drea’s classic Japan’s Imperial Army, was a samurai
Located down a sideroad in old Wanhua District (萬華區), Waley Art (水谷藝術) has an established reputation for curating some of the more provocative indie art exhibitions in Taipei. And this month is no exception. Beyond the innocuous facade of a shophouse, the full three stories of the gallery space (including the basement) have been taken over by photographs, installation videos and abstract images courtesy of two creatives who hail from the opposite ends of the earth, Taiwan’s Hsu Yi-ting (許懿婷) and Germany’s Benjamin Janzen. “In 2019, I had an art residency in Europe,” Hsu says. “I met Benjamin in the lobby
April 22 to April 28 The true identity of the mastermind behind the Demon Gang (魔鬼黨) was undoubtedly on the minds of countless schoolchildren in late 1958. In the days leading up to the big reveal, more than 10,000 guesses were sent to Ta Hwa Publishing Co (大華文化社) for a chance to win prizes. The smash success of the comic series Great Battle Against the Demon Gang (大戰魔鬼黨) came as a surprise to author Yeh Hung-chia (葉宏甲), who had long given up on his dream after being jailed for 10 months in 1947 over political cartoons. Protagonist
A fossil jawbone found by a British girl and her father on a beach in Somerset, England belongs to a gigantic marine reptile dating to 202 million years ago that appears to have been among the largest animals ever on Earth. Researchers said on Wednesday the bone, called a surangular, was from a type of ocean-going reptile called an ichthyosaur. Based on its dimensions compared to the same bone in closely related ichthyosaurs, the researchers estimated that the Triassic Period creature, which they named Ichthyotitan severnensis, was between 22-26 meters long. That would make it perhaps the largest-known marine reptile and would