In class we watched Dan Graham's 1975 piece, "Performer/Audience/Mirror." Please post at least two thoughtful comments on the piece, continuing our class conversation, and/or responding to the following quotes concerning the piece:
"The performance is doubly reflected back to the audience by the artist's lecturing and the architectural device of a mirrored wall. Graham has written extensively on how video, which can deliver information in real time, functions semiotically as a mirror. Using the mirror at the back of the stage as a monitor, Graham voices his unrehearsed observations, activating the various feedback cycles taking place within himself as a performer, between the performer and the audience, and among audience members. Issues of duration and attention are critical for both performer and audience." (Rewind: Video Art and Alternative Media in the United States, Chris Hill, ed.)
"Through the use of the mirror the audience is able to instantaneously percieve itself as a public mass (as a unity), offsetting its definition by the performer('s discourse). The audience sees itself reflected by the mirror instantly while the performer's comments are slightly delayed. First, a person in the audience sees himself "objectively" ("subjectively") perceived by himself, next he hears himself described "objectively" ("subjectively") in terms of the performer's perception." (Dan Graham qtd. in Hill)
13 comments:
When I was watching Graham's mirror piece, I couldn't stop thinking that Graham was also showing us what video can bring to the table for performance art. If we were to document a piece of work with words instead of video, it would take hundreds of pages to produce as much detail as video. To explain exactly the way his ankle is rolling, where his hands are placed, the reactions of the audience, his thoughts of self image-it would take so long to write and read that. His piece brings to mind the power and ease of video.
My other comment is about our in-class discussion about how the second video we watched wasn't entertaining or "stimulating." The one thing that I think is important to keep in mind is that not all stimulation is positive or "entertaining." To stimulate is to cause a reaction. So even if your reaction is "wow that was really boring" it still caused a reaction and it still stimulated you. I also agree that intention has a great deal to do with how you critique or regard someone's work. If the artist meant for the piece to be boring or annoying or even confusing, then the artist succeeded in their work
I think that Graham's piece is really in sync with some other artists who use video as a medium. He used the visual of movement layered with an audible description to play with the video medium as well as create a relationship with the audience both in the video and outside. I have seen other artist who layer music, commentary and various images to create narratives as well as try to elicit a specific response from the audience. I agree that stimulation doesn't always have to be enjoyable so Graham was successful in being innovative and eliciting a response however; I personally would not want to "participate" in his piece again.
Personally, Graham's mirror piece was way outside of the box for me. My attempts to understand that this piece is considered performance art. I never realized some of the simplest performances could be considered art. However, really, where is the line drawn? I really could not give an answer for this. I agreed when in our in-class discussion people brought up that art does not always have to be positive or “entertaining”. Yet, when really is art considered art? Is it when the artist declares that their piece is art? When looking up the definition of art, there really is no one, answer. When I did a search, it came up with 37 different entries for the word art. The best definition of art that I found states: skill acquired by experience, study, or observation. This is still a very broad definition.
Now for the second video we watched, I found that to be ridiculous. I could not understand why we were meant to sit there and watch this video. This video to me was not performance art at all. If anything, I thought the guy might need to be admitted to the psychiatric ward. I just think, I am not at that level to understand this type of ‘performance’ art. Some people might be really offended by this, but I honestly did not understand the purpose. Which, I feel as if all artists have a purpose to their artwork, either it be their own personal reason, or a reason they let the world know about. I honestly, cannot even imagine a purpose to this guys ‘work’.
i didn't see the piece.
and admittedly i only read about a quarter of the stuff i was supposed to in my critcal theory class, but how do we feel about the intentional fallacy?
how do we know what the artist meant? and if we react differently from how the artist intended us to react are we wrong?
My thoughts during the Graham piece primarily dwelled on concepts of body awareness and observation. Because spoken language is such a relatively slow form of expressing information compared to vision or imagination (or as I like to write 'image-ination'), attempting to verbally describe everything that one visually perceives forces a slowing of thought and a hightened awareness of mundane details. Because Graham was describing his bodily movements this made the audience acutely aware of their own bodies and the usually subconcious movements we all make all the time. Graham did not often describe what things looked like, but only provided commentary to motions and behaviors, as if they were the only pertinent details when observing oneself and others.
The second video certainly evoked the behavior of a 'crazy person'. The compulsive rubbing of thighs, the character's need to "believe" what he described, his ambivilance to what he needed, and also his need for the viewer to be with him, made him a pitiful character. This portrayal made me contemplate the reality and sadness of insanity, and not just the severely insane but even the small neuroses that everyone has- the need for company, the need to believe in a fantasy, the need to believe in reality. Regarding our discussion, it is more practical and rewarding to attempt to understand a creation based upon your reaction to the creation and the chords it may strike in your own mind, not any supposed intent (or lack thereof)by the artist regarding how you should respond.
I think Graham's piece was visually dry but when just the audio portion was cnosidered it gave a whole different feel. To hear how someone describes their actions and try to visualize what they were in fact doing made the piece much more interesting. The visual of reflection was very allusionary for me. What happens to us as we look at ourselves, notice the slight changes in body, face, motion, etc. It was almost as though he used the audience as a guide to notice his own movements. When they moved their heads, uncomfortable looks on faces, laughing, it all played back to him and what he was doing in front of them.
GRAHAM'S CLIP- Actually, to me, I could not hear what he was saying exactly. However, his gesture, walking path for moving, and motion were not useless things. However, he kept his hands move around and talk to the mirror were not very interesting perform to me.
For the second clip- Unfortunatle, I could not think that he was performing because it was too different form of performing that I thought. In my opinion, performers should make audience to understand what they are doing. That is why performers are performing in front of people. If so few people would understand and clap to whom, it is not a good perform work. An esoteric perform is not the best. I prefer the first art work.
"The performance is doubly reflected back to the audience by the artist's lecturing and the architectural device of a mirrored wall. Graham has written extensively on how video, which can deliver information in real time, functions semiotically as a mirror. Using the mirror at the back of the stage as a monitor, Graham voices his unrehearsed observations, activating the various feedback cycles taking place within himself as a performer, between the performer and the audience, and among audience members. Issues of duration and attention are critical for both performer and audience." (Rewind: Video Art and Alternative Media in the United States, Chris Hill, ed.)
I found the compostion of this peice incredably compelling. through the vido, we are place as members in the audience seeing, in real time, exacly what they are seeing. we activly participate, just as they do. When he starts to comment on peoples postures and manarisms, he is also dictating what the "out of video" audience is doing. the fourth wall is broken, and i a least, grew uncomfortable and figity.
Through the use of the mirror the audience is able to instantaneously percieve itself as a public mass (as a unity), offsetting its definition by the performer('s discourse). The audience sees itself reflected by the mirror instantly while the performer's comments are slightly delayed. First, a person in the audience sees himself "objectively" ("subjectively") perceived by himself, next he hears himself described "objectively" ("subjectively") in terms of the performer's perception."
again, as ik said, this delay, and diference between seein onself in a mirror objetivly and being describes subjectivly leds itself to being discomforted. i found it interesting that the performer subjected both the audience and himself to this.
Post a Comment