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.
Last week, Viola Zhou published a marvelous deep dive into the culture clash between Taiwanese boss mentality and American labor practices at the Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC) plant in Arizona in Rest of World. “The American engineers complained of rigid, counterproductive hierarchies at the company,” while the Taiwanese said American workers aren’t dedicated. The article is a delight, but what it is depicting is the clash between a work culture that offers employee autonomy and at least nods at work-life balance, and one that runs on hierarchical discipline enforced by chickenshit. And it runs on chickenshit because chickenshit is a cultural
My previous column Donovan’s Deep Dives: The powerful political force that vanished from the English press on April 23 began with three paragraphs of what would be to most English-language readers today incomprehensible gibberish, but are very typical descriptions of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) internal politics in the local Chinese-language press. After a quiet period in the early 2010s, the English press stopped writing about the DPP factions, the factions changed and eventually local English-language journalists could not reintroduce the subject without a long explanation on the context that would not fit easily in a typical news article. That previous
April 29 to May 5 One month before the Taipei-Keelung New Road (北基新路) was set to open, the news that US general Douglas MacArthur had died, reached Taiwan. The military leader saw Taiwan as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” that was of huge strategic value to the US. He’d been a proponent of keeping it out of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) hands. Coupled with the fact that the US had funded more than 50 percent of the road’s construction costs, the authorities at the last minute renamed it the MacArthur Thruway (麥帥公路) for his “great contributions to the free world and deep
Years ago, I was thrilled when I came across a map online showing a fun weekend excursion: a long motorcycle ride into the mountains of Pingtung County (屏東) going almost up to the border with Taitung County (台東), followed by a short hike up to a mountain lake with the mysterious name of “Small Ghost Lake” (小鬼湖). I shared it with a more experienced hiking friend who then proceeded to laugh. Apparently, this road had been taken out by landslides long before and was never going to be fixed. Reaching the lake this way — or any way that would