In our book, Site-Specific Art: Performance, Place and Documentation, we pulled several examples of performance "art."
1. One particular artist, Acconci, decided to sit in a small theater and stare at each member of the audience for 30 seconds at a time. He deemed their reactions art (155).
In this case, does the impermanence or changing nature of the piece of art make it less special? Obviously each audience member's reaction changes based on his/her own experience with Acconci's gaze, so the "art" constantly changes.
This also resonates with the presentation on Beauty where the group proposed these questions: Is art (or beauty) private or socially inscribed? Do we find the meaning in our own personal experience or in what others tell us?
2. Another example pulled from the book is of Meredith Monk, who performed a dance in three different places and deemed them site-specific (119-123).
This rasied the question of whether or not works of art can be transferred to different places. Can you re-create a site? Does the re-created site lose its significance?
No comments:
Post a Comment