Art as Performative Enactment

Performance art has always stuck me as being one of the most personal forms of art there is, especially art that engages its audience physically. The analogy of a game was what stood out to me the most in the article, as actors in a piece of performance art are actually quite similar to players in a game. There are certain rules that they must follow and the players must "subordinate [their] own goals and purposes to those of the game itself." However, I'm not quite sure I agree with the assertion that "adding an audience does not change anything." I believe it changes things on a few different levels. First, the human factor of a performer must be considered. It is, in my opinion, to completely subordinate oneself to the game; one still has a sense of self, even when performing. Adding a spectator to anything changes the way in which the performer feels and, as a result, how they perform. Second, the audience members themselves, by directly interacting with a performer, assert a very direct influence on the piece. I suppose the author feels that no matter who the players are, the game is the game; that's where I disagree.
In the past, I've always thought that recording performances took something away from the magic off the experience. That being said, I realize now that certain pieces work best (or differently) in front of a camera. We already looked at Andy Warhol Not Rolling a Joint in class, so I won't post it again, but that piece would have a considerably different feel were it performed live. I racked my brain about performance pieces that worked best on video or film and found myself coming back to Warhol, perhaps just because I'm familiar with his work, but also I think some of his work is an excellent example of filmed performance.

I've included an edited version of Warhol's notorious Blow Job, since I couldn't find the full 35 minute version.