Wednesday 24 October 2012

tiny acts of repair 1









Tiny acts of repair – notes post performance

Sewing kits
Repair
Temporary fixes and
Hotel freebies (the pointlessness of the free kits you get in a hotel, tiny needles, a small amount of thread, buttons – what could you possible hope to repair/fix with this?)

Studio – fingertip threads

Action sewing fingertips. Just do it. No record. Then write it as a log. Detail as a stream. Document fingers from a personal hand held camera perspective after event. Keep threads.

Prep – of space and materials
Needles                                                                                          make do and mend/feminine/my mum/to fix something. The domestic. Temporally bound or darned. Care. Renew and refresh. Mother binding, restriction, to love too much. Wound too tight.
Thread
Scissors
Paper
Pen
Camera

Action
Sit and sew
Collect threads
Document fingers
Write                                                                                                                                                     tiny acts of repair
Small (w)holes. Floss. Clean away
Tiny gaps. The bits we can’t reach…or see.

Evaluate

Just this. No video. No performance and action in a space. Private

Tiny acts…. what is it about??
Connecting
Connection
To hold/retain something -  the failure of that
Fragility of hold something
No blood
Too tight
Bond
Smother

Connect all fingertips. Threaded. Not a violent action.
Careful, precise, controlled.
Exam conditions.

Improvised.

In the space for a set amount of time to explore the materials.

thoughts.....

Current research on the work and methodologies of Sandra Johnson has directly fed into my studio practice. I was extremely excited by her direct strategies for making involving totally private, undocumented ‘sourcing’ of material for performances and her approach to documentation [1].
(further details of specific examples of Johnston’s work will be discussed in the case study)

My studio experiments sought to explore the enactment of a ‘solo’, private action that was undertaken with minimal materials and a simple direction as a starting point. I consciously did not plan an outcome but rather placed materials in the space (needles, thread, paper, pen, table, chair and a small hand held camera) and explored the materials with the actions lasting as long as necessary for it to be complete with no particular time frame. The actions were very simple and consisted of using the needle and thread to sew through the tips of my fingers on both hand then immediately afterwards write a log of the experience. I then documented my hands using the small camera and removed the thread from my fingers. I then sewed the log together.

I also decided not to record the action whilst it was taking place as I felt this was intrusive and emphasized the observational nature of viewing. For this piece I wanted to be inside the work and therefore wanted to explore alternative ways of documenting and recording the action. I wanted to respond to the previous evaluations of the performance platforms by removing the element of ‘performance’ or rather performing specifically to an audience and explore a private action which was self contained in both execution and documentation.

I wanted to find a less observational method of documentation. For both previous performance platforms I had other people take photos of my performing body. This created an image, an observational recording – usually at a distance – of a moment, which had occurred. Most of the images also comprised the/my whole body/ self within it – a complete distortion of that which I was experiencing. For ‘tiny acts of repair’ I only wanted to document that which I could see, my fingers, my hands, the thread the needle the tables edge – the images are not the best quality as they were taken with one of the hands which had already been ‘sewn’. Again I wanted the image to reflect the action, from my point of view and impeded by that which had cause for the image to be taken.

Previous comments regarding the documentation of my work had been the observational nature of it had inherently caused a distancing for the viewer – you were seeing a ‘set’ completed image – what could be added to it? I wanted to begin to address this through the images in ‘tiny acts of repair’ by only revealing fragments and never fully seeing the whole action, that is not taking an image of my whole body, seated in a chair, performing the act. This was an action not a performance…….expand. (relation to the current use of the word “action/akion” implying an immediacy, that this is real – happening now, to a body and therefore demanding of your attention…..)

This attempted to address the theatrical conventions that were present in my pervious performances and consider the distancing mechanism that were present within them. With this current experiment I wanted to connect directly with the materials and allow for an image to form rather than have a predetermined image in my head that I was working towards creating. This opened the work to a new level of interpretation – something, which can be built upon, and more explorations are undertaken.



WIRAD exhibition and symposium– June 2012

Tiny acts of repair (1)

tiny acts of repair (1) is the first of a series of works resulting from ongoing practice and research; current influences include the work of Gina Pane and Sandra Johnston. Tiny acts of repair explores and exposes what constitutes the private through the use of materials, mundane action and public spaces whilst challenging the presence of ‘theatricality’ within performance art. Through the enactment of intimate rituals, the piece acknowledges the unseen, seeking that which is unnoticed and challenging what constitutes the ‘private’.

The photographic images and written log document a recent performance action.

Photographs x 3 - -documentation of first performance action
Written log
Needle
Thread
Table
chair







The image and brief outline above displays the presentation of ‘tiny acts of repair’ at the WIRAD symposium. Three A1 images of documentation from the initial performance experiment in the studio along with the table and chair used in the performance and the written log placed on the table, viewers were able to sit on chair and read the notes on the table made after the action had taken place.

Upon realizing the work in a gallery space I immediately wanted to explore more images – enough to fill a wall and a new way of seeing the action. Seeing more images would also allow for the display of varied documentation – possibly blurred images a quicker, less precious approach to documenting the action.

A full wall of images. Fragments becoming a whole?
Large images of details filling a wall.
To engulf the viewer.

Rather than invite viewer into the space whilst the action is occurring seeing the documentation. Important considerations on how this documentation is presented. How can that presentation continue the meaning making/exchange within the work and the viewer and continue/extend the performance/action ideas.

When considering how to present the documentation from ‘tiny act of repair’ I remembered a quote from Kristine Stiles when discussing the large paintings of Mark Rothko. She considers why the artist chose to paint such large images (this is also applicable to the recent Hockney exhibition at the Royal academy, summer 12, and a TV documentary interviewing Hockney he describes his recent work painting extremely large canvas in situ in the woods. Placed within a gallery environment the viewer is overwhelmed by the image to the point of standing too close made you dizzy and unable to see the entire parameter of the image….expand – example quotes…..). The scale of Rothko’s work, rather than intending to imply a sense of grandeur or pompousness sought to be intimate and human. This may seem a contradiction however ‘to paint a small picture is to place yourself outside of your experience……to paint a larger picture you are in it”. [1] (expand)

This notion of finding a moment of intimacy within the presentation of a large image made me consider my own documentation and how this could reflect and induce a particular state within the viewer. I felt incredibly intimate in the moment of creating the action, close to it and focused on every tiny movement. I wanted to somehow translate this through the documentation to the viewer. I was interested in the idea of the viewer rather than feeling ‘outside’ of a small or single image but being engulfed by the mass of images within a larger space  - to become immersed within a large detail. I wanted to leave space for them to image the action occurring by not presenting an observed image of my whole self-performing the action in a space.

For the WIRAD exhibition I felt that some of these realizations came a little late and the presented work was not wholly successful. The presentation of only 3 images didn’t really fill the space and therefore didn’t really convey a sense of scale possibly leaving the viewer still at a distance. For future work I would like to address this and explore scale and multiple images to greater effect.

However considering feedback from the previous performance pieces it was the images, which depict the details or the fragments of materials that drew the viewer further into the work. Why? Could be because the image is unfinished, left open to interpretation it allows the viewer to participate in the making of meaning. As opposed to the observational image, the documented performer, which keeps the audience at a distance as it offers a completed, freeze of the action. I felt I took this on board within the presented work at WIRAD.

This experience left me re considering where my documentation or rather the decisions I make regarding the documentation places the viewer? Inside or outside the work – drawn into it or left at an observational distance?

(What is the result of other performance artists and their documentation – Gina Pane and her very carefully planned documentation to the point of impinging on the viewers’ experience).


Future developments/research– context for practical discoveries.

Theatricality – what is it?

What do I mean by theatricality?
Is it present within performance art work – both my own and in the work of key artists?
What is its value, meaning and effect in my practice and in that of others?


I am interested in how the presence of certain theatrical strategies/conventions may or may not be present in contemporary performance art. In light of this how these identified conventions may impact upon key states .

These thoughts led to the formulation of a new research question.......

Environment and intimacy in the elision of theater and performance art.

Initial thoughts/research points.....

Live art, and more importantly to my investigations, performance art has for a long time cited its practices within a visual framework, defining itself against the traditions of theatre and often rejecting theatrical conventions such as conventional narratives and representation. Historically and critically performance art practices, due to the visual nature, claimed to have a greater affinity with a fine art context as opposed to theatrical genealogies. Yet performance art practitioners such as Carolee Schneeman, Gina Pane, Marina Abramovich to name a few often use performance itself as a method of destabilizing the conventions with the visual arts therefore placing performance and the associations surround it within highly slippery ground.

Beth Hoffman in Performance Research suggests that Live Art, particularly within the UK, has a history of  “ breaking with the Theatre” the term ‘breaking’ inherently suggests a rejection of and movement away from theatrical histories and conventions. [1] However performance art by its very definition and use of the word ‘performance’ suggests a complex relationship yet distance towards theatricality; it is both related to and yet removed from the associated dialogues of theatre.

Recent discoveries within my own research and the witnessing and participation of contemporary performance artists within local and national platforms have raised questions as to the authenticity of this view.
Is there really such a division within visual based practices and the presence of theatrical formalities such as audience positioning, lighting and the structure/presentation of the work? (pre-rehearsed? Durational? The impact of improvisation?)

What is the impact of such formalities within the performing and viewing experience and how does this impact upon the state induced within the audience? That is the state created or induced between the person who makes the art and the person it affects whether that be joy, intimacy or unease. Does the presence of certain theatrical conventions evoke a sense of disengagement?

A recent article in Contemporary Theatre Review by Lara Shalson begins to discuss the complicated dialogues occurring within specific self-professed ‘live art’ practitioners and how their practice works with rather than ‘breaking’ away from, the conventions of the theatre. She looks in great detail towards the work of Forced Entertainment and the impact of duration within performance works. Shalson considers the connection, prevalence and complex relationship of theatre within Live Art.

However for the purposes of my research  I would like to turn attention back towards the work of specific performance artists whose work is perhaps too readily associated with a self conscious turning away from that which may be associated with the theatrical. I am tempted to suggest that the relationship between theatre and performance art, particularly today, is more complex and inter-dependent rather than a simple rejection or movement away from a particular form. To borrow a phrase from Peggy Phenlan performance ‘clogs the smooth machinery of reproduction as part of its ontological resistance to reproduction.[2] (Does performance art today still resist reproduction? Is the experience as 'full' as it should be?)

How does the discussion of the presence (or lack of) of specific theatrical conventions within performance art affect our experience/understanding of the work?

What is the impact of such conventions on the use of materials? In particular materials, which inherently house or share an affinity with the anti-theatrical nature of performance art. for example materials used by artists such as Gina Pane and Sandra Johnston which present the viewer with functional, familiar objects/materials such as milk, wire, shoe laces etc and are used in a non-representational context. (expand)

Shalson in her article in uses durational performance and the use of endurance as a specific aspect of performance to navigate and destabilize the debate of theatrical presence within certain Live Art practitioners. I would like to consider other performance strategies, such as improvisation, the environment of the performance and the use of material and trace as an extension and continuation of this research.

I am interested in the ways in which my practice along the work of certain performance artists induces particular states within the viewer, in particular states of intimacy or closeness, vulnerability and unease and whether of not the presence of particular theatrical conventions confirm or deny such states.

Shalson’s thorough investigation of the work of ‘forced entertainment’ considers how to address and use theatrical conventions such as rehearsal, mimetic repetition and the representation of states, such as death, can be used to investigate theatrical strategies within live art. In essence practically pushing these strategies to their limits to reveal the inner workings of those theatrical techniques. (quote tim etchells??him uses theatrical conventions to unearth themselves….becoming performance that is/was always there.)

Shalson suggests that there is “an enduring distinction between theatre and performance art” [3]. Theatre V’s Performance art is not a new debate. Jon Erikson in his article ‘performing distinction’ in Performing Arts Journal contradicts Shalson in discussing the difficulties of distinguishing performance art from theatre. He states that it is “impossible to distinguish performance art form theatre” that they are intrinsically linked.  However he does suggest a specific exception in the ‘literal and experiential character of endurance and body art’. [4] He goes on to suggest that it is the lack of illusion and traditional role-playing that sets this particular strand of performance art apart. Body art and its literalness present actions that are not mimetic but are understood to be ‘really done’ therefore asserting the literal over the metaphorical. That the distinction between theatre and performance art, as cited by Erikson, occurs because of the latters ‘realness’ and essential anti-theatricality .[5]

However I would argue that my experience of recent contemporary body based performance art does not separate itself from the illusionary strategies associated with theatre as clearly as Erikson suggests, that perhaps the literalness becomes diluted. This will be further explained with key examples later in the research (tempting failure – piercing – unseen actions and rehearsed strategies/social media and my practice – in contrast to improvisation/SJ work etc)

Is this ‘literalness’ often built upon theatrical expectations? Artifice -  in considering recent performance works at 'Tempting Failure' (performance space March 2012)– the hidden pins on the palm of an artists' hand, which created the wound (the artist repeatedly struck her chest until a red, raw wound appeared)– were we supposed to believe the wound was created due to the repetition of flesh on flesh? After speaking to several audience members and through my own experience I only realized how the marks were made after reading the ‘non-published’ list of requirements for performance which indicated that fine pins were fixed (unseen) to the palms of the performers hands. This made me feel cheated – why not state explicitly how the marks were made? (expand........)

The ‘behind the scenes’ piercing of various performer's bodies - as an audience member I was blind to this literalness and in essence the pivotal point of the ensuing performance – we are shielded from the moment of impact and only permitted to see the aftermath. I am questioning what do we really see and what is being assumed as real? The state of uncomfortability, which was induced in me watching the previously mentioned performances, wasn’t because of the work itself or the literal nature of the actions but because of the lack of explicitness in the presentation of those actions. I felt excluded and to an extent manipulated (because the work was trying to make be feel something/trying too hard to affect me) and this made me uncomfortable. Why? Because of the expectations I held within the parameters of performance art. I was expecting ‘realness’ not artifice or representation.

This experience made me question the status of the actions I was witnessing and whether illusion was actually still present. Did the performances I witnessed and those which I made and performed really “approach the real through resisting the metaphorical reduction of two into one” that is, did they reject representation or was I really witnessing and participating in a performance representing itself, our at least a reproduction of our expectations of it. [6]

(could this provide an explanation as to why a certain state was induced? Disappointment/emptiness a desire to be filled more?)

(reputation of performance art today? Performing itself…)

Shalson, in summarizing performance arts “entanglement with anti theatricality” and suggesting “an inability to get away from a discomfort with that which is deemed ‘theatrical’ “……ongoing debate, intersection btwn theatre and performance art…….”theatre as something all performance endures”.  CTR pg 119.

Consider theatricality in an established performance artist work?

(Marina Abramovich at the Manchester international arts festival – relished in its theatricality! also discussions within 'the artist is present' - expand.....)


Ensuing questions…..

What makes one performance artist or piece less theatrical than another?
How does the use of materials impact upon this?
Why is this important? Important to my research into performance lexicon and specific states because of how it does/does not affect that state. Give specific examples through artist case studies and my work. ?



[1] Hoffman, Beth, ‘Radicalism and the Theatre in Genealogies of Live Art’, performance Research, 14.1 (2009) pg 104. this point was cited by Shalson in on the endurance of theatre in Live art, CTR, pg 107
[2] Phelan, Peggy unmarked; the politics of performance. (London and new york: routledge, 1993, p 148.
[3] Shalson, L – on the endurance of theatre in Live art, CTR, pg 107.
[4] Ericson, Jon Performing distinctions, PAJ:A journal of performance and art; 21.3 (1999) 98-104. again Shalson mentions the relevance of Ericson's argument wthin her discussion of Live Art.
[5] (expand – see Nicholas Ridout, stage fright, animls and other theatrical problems, Cambridge uni press, 2006)

[6] Phelan, Peggy unmarked; the politics of performance. (London and new york: routledge, 1993, pg 152does my work fit in


tbc...........






[1] Mark Rothko in Stiles, K. theories and documents of Contemporary Art. Pg 26.






[1] ‘Sourcing’ a term used by Sandra Johnston to describe the way in which she gathers material in order to generate a particular series of performances. Information taken from an online interview with Brian Cattling, European Live Art Archive – ELAA
www.liveartarchive.eu. Accessed 4/8/12