Please post at least two thoughtful comments on the readings for this week: pages 133-173 in the Fusco book; and "Presence" in Absentia: Experiencing Performance as Documentation by Amelia Jones.
Here are some considerations:
•Are you convinced by Jones' claims and contentions about experiencing a work only as documentation? How does it's presence in document differ from the live experience of the piece? How do these issues affect your process of deciding methods of documentation?
•Respond to and critique one specific work by Mendieta, Clark, or Oiticica. Given that your experience of this work is solely description in an essay and possibly documentary photographs, what elements of your response do you think are owed to this written perspective?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
•Respond to and critique one specific work by Mendieta, Clark, or Oiticica. Given that your experience of this work is solely description in an essay and possibly documentary photographs, what elements of your response do you think are owed to this written perspective?
The effect of Mendieta's first performance about rape that occured in her apartment and was witnessed unexpectedly by her friends and fellow students is almost completely lost when described in a few sentences. My response to this work is entirely based upon my imagination of what the setting was and how I may have felt during the performance. Considering that this performance specifically is meant to physically shock the viewer with the visual reality of rape, it is essential to physically experience the performance. Although a short description of this piece, lumped together with all the other Mendieta performances about rape, gives me academic knowledge and exposure to her work, I don't experience the visceral response that she intended. She even wrote, "I can't see being theoretical about an issue like that." It is ironic that this documentation of this piece became theoretical.
The effects of the sensorial works of Lygia Clark are also lost when documented in the Fusco book. These works are entirely dependent on experience. Experience, awareness, perceptions; are the medium of the art. If it were possible to replicate the experience of wearing the "Dialogo" goggles, or if the sensation could be translated into another media, there would have been no need for "Dialogo" goggles. Only through wearing them can the audience experience the art. This piece fails the abilities of documentation even more so than the Mendiata piece. You cannot take photographs or film of a sensory perception. I suppose the best way to understand the effects of the goggles without wearing them yourself would be to read first hand accounts of the experience by those who have worn them. These are not included in the reading. My response that is owed to this written perspective is one of curiosity. Knowing that these goggles exist but without being able to wear them myself makes me want to make some or find out where I can get some and try them.
Post a Comment