Karenina.it Express - Theories: Performance
Background image: Caterina Davinio
By Enno Stahl
Some (very subjective) notes to begin with:
When speaking about performance one must first have a
look at the prejudices. The usual coverage of this theme, especially on the
part of the art press, reports that performance is basically finished; that
performance was a phenomenon of the 60īs and 70īs and today can only be
regarded as the third rehash, at best. This is often accompanied by those
arguments that question the artistic character of performance, both in general
and in principle.
Such arguments not only hamper contemporary
performanceīs right to exist but they also attempt to undermine the
"history of performance" and negate its legitimacy retroactively. The
political intentions are obvious. The branch of art being rebuked here is one
that has always been a reservoir for the most resistance ; the one most
noticeably maintaining the anarchistic, rebellious spirit of the avant-garde.
More than all others it is this branch that turns its back on the prescribed
institutional art of the establishment and stands opposed to the market and the
commercial exploitation (conscription) of art.
Performance is "fleeting". It comes into
being and vanishes forever and thus exemplifies the imaginary character of art
in general. The accusation that this is no longer contemporary is automatically
subject to "ideological suspicion". It intentionally obscures the
essence of art and moreover attempts to reestablish the long-since overcome
ideal of the "aura" of the artwork. Art criticism thus reveals its
own subjugation and demonstrates more than clearly how much it has degenerated.
(Unlike in the literary field, art criticism played a definite role in the
acceptance of the radical positions of the 50īs, etc.) It now plays a mere
accomplice to capital interest.
That is the theoretical aspect of the matter. However,
even seen practically, such a defamation of "Performance Art"
overlooks the facts. It reveals at least extensive ignorance of all the
contemporary developments in this field during the late 80īs and early 90īs. To
obtain an overall view is admittedly difficult because, as stated, performance
is fleeting. The documentation is fundamentally inadequate (whether it be text,
photo or video) because the field of tension that a performance builds is not
there. So it is basically only possible to talk about performances that one has
personally experienced (and that applies to every time the performance takes
place). Additionally, performance seldom appears in the public aesthetic
discourse or has write-ups in the daily press or art magazines. There is no
forum to carry out a program of regular performance events and none to provide
joint information on current trends. Performance takes place to a certain
extent in public exclusion. It is a cat biting its own tail: Because it has no
media presence the media will not present it.
Any efforts to determine the original qualities or the
common ground of contemporary performance unavoidably suffer in this dilemma.
Given the heterogeneousness and variety characteristic to performance and the
state of available information, any systematic approach seems virtually
impossible. In addition, one can only speak about the performances one actually
attends.
One thing, however, can be objectively stated in spite
of all the prophesies of doom: performance booms and not as a side-show for
gallery openings but performance as an independent art action. Between the high
point of action-art and the beginning of the 80īs a multitude of performers of
a younger generation arose. One center of their activity is the art metropolis,
Cologne, which considering the concentration of artists there is not
surprising. There and elsewhere numerous performance evenings and festivals
take place. Although they are more likely to be organized from the
"underground" than to receive any blessing from the art
establishment.
Until now there has only been very little overlapping
of this young scene with the performers of the FLUXUS or POST-FLUXUS sphere.
This is presumably also due to a lack of a firm foothold for performance among
the artistic public. On the other hand, it also led to the relatively
independent development of a new generation.
Naturally here, as everywhere, there are qualitative
differences and at such events one is always confronted with performances that
justify the above-mentioned prejudices completely. This indeed raises the
questions: when is it performance art, when is it art performance and what is
performance itself? The answers are difficult because any (even general) definition
of content creates an unacceptable restriction of the field. My suggestion
would be: PERFORMANCE IS THAT SOMETHING HAPPENS AND THAT ONLY THAT HAPPENS -
which some might possibly find already too exclusive. Consider it a
"working definition" so we can have a rough idea of what we are
talking about. In any case, generalizations become very difficult and are never
compatible with all the important manifestations of performance.
However, a few features of contemporary performance
activity can be cited. They are only exemplary features and in no way
prescribed or compulsory. First, the performances of today are conspicuously
shorter than they used to be. For the performance generation of the70īs a
thirty minute duration might have been average, (and at times infinitely
longer). Today one usually sees five minute short-performances
(Performance-Clips) which are oriented to present-day viewing and listening
habits. Even 10 minutes is a rarity. That may first appear to be a simple
quantitative criterion but it is more. Such clips are much less likely to bring
on the notoriously grating "performance boredom", an otherwise (in
view of the earlier performances) not totally unjustified objection to
performance. In essence, if one only has five minutes then one must get to the
point within that time. Formally this leads to a faster, more compact
development of the theme or a reduction or limitation to one or a very few
subjects. The result is a greater conciseness of everything that happens within
the action. Every hand movement; every component of the action has a great deal
more weight in this shortened context. In the craft this can be very noticeable
- positively as well as negatively. In that there is no time to linger, one
must pay very careful attention to what one does. This does not exclude longer
performances but they have gained experience from the shorter ones (or should
have) and thus are now also more compact.
Presumably due to the altered awareness of the present
generation, performance today is often funnier, more entertaining than in its
heyday. This is not to be taken as being against tradition and does not mean
that "serious performance" no longer takes place today or is no
longer possible. It is simply noticeable that many of the performers today use humor
to a greater extent to get their point across. Naturally, at times, that was
also the case in the past. Many younger performers might draw on the
anarchistic , paradoxical joke components of FLUXUS for example. Performance
becomes the documentation of a single good idea, of a bizarre notion which
perhaps in all its eccentricity will momentarily shut down this supposedly
well-ordered world, question it and make alternative perspectives possible.
Performance today no longer fears the "stigma" of entertainment,
slapstick and complete nonsense. It does not see the necessity for a mutual
interpretation of the world but rather rebels against it. Thus, some
performances are to a certain extent in intentional opposition to the
"classical" performance idea (if one can even speak of such things),
whereas others possibly take up the traditional to develop it further.
The impetus of performance today stems not only from
its own genre (DADA, FLUXUS, 70īs) but also from the music (trash, punk, rap)
and the video-art/commercial video that arises around it. This everyday life is
probably of the greatest principle significance to performance. Everyday life,
however, has changed in the last 20 or 30 years and as a result the expressions
are different.
This bright, somewhat looser, handling of the themes
puts the audience into a new position and the audience is decisive in building
that tension which is essential to the performance. The effort is no longer
demanded to follow and interpret a heavily clausular, hermetic image. This was
the case with many "classical" performances ( and still is among the
representatives of that generation.) Now the relationship between the actor and
the audience appears to be more sociable. It is easier for the dialogue (which
is what the performance is) to develop, for example, when mutually known facts
out of the trivial world become the theme of the performance. The audience can
then easily follow the performance according to their own store of experience.
These are a few initial ideas and it must be pointed
out again that these notes do not pretend to be complete. It is the nature of
performance that it defies categorization. However, such a conclusion leads
nowhere and only re-enforces the status quo. We still know very little about the
contemporary manifestations of performance. This report should, therefore, only
be considered a small common denominator and a basis of discussion. It welcomes
expansion in whatever respect. Otherwise, strictly speaking if one wants to
talk about performance, about the atypical originality which distinguishes it
from performance art of the past, one needs concrete examples. There is nothing
wrong with this. On the contrary - people should just talk about performances
more often.