Please post at least two comments on the readings for this week: the Klaus Groh essay, the Jon Erickson essay, and pages 7-49 in the Goldberg book.
Here are some considerations:
•How do the working definitions of performance art, whether delineated, implied, or retreated from, differ for each author?
•What claims are you inclined to believe/agree with? (and why)
•Are you willing to answer any of the questions asked by Erickson in the concluding sections of his essay? ("Should we expect a historian. . .to be a skilled theoretician at the same time?" "When and how does theatre become 'performance theatre," "the relation of art to life" etc.)
•Defend or refute Goldberg's claim on pg. 9 that the base of performance art has always been anarchic.
•If you have studied the Futurists in other courses (art history, English, etc), how does this recounting of the movement's history differ from what you learned before about the individual artists work, their motivations? Does this recontextualization affect your reading of their manifesto claims?
•Why are these authors making claims about artists' "desperation" (Groh), "impatience" (Goldberg), experience in "ridicule" (Erickson)? What might this imply about the art world, mainstream culture's perception of performance art, or an artist's choice to work in performance? How does this square with your experience of the "art world"?
Please note: Erickson's references to Goldberg's book,
Performance: Live Art Since 1960 differ from his references to her book,
Live Art: 1908 to the Present, which is an earlier version of our class text.