In discussing the subjective meaning that must be derived from performative art, Klemm states, "What is more, the viewer must assume responsibility for those meanings, and he or she is aware of having to assume such responsibility" (70). I find this statement very interesting, not because of what it says, but because of how it says it. Specifically, I think the quote is an interesting way to say that interpreting art indicates how one perceives the world. Thus, performative art doesn't necessarily make one analyze the meaning of the art but what the art means to them. I think that this suggests performative art is much more raw and personal for the viewer than other art forms.
But does one always have to see meaning in the performative act? And if the viewer cannot find meaning, is that then failure of the viewer or of the artist? And can any action be defined as performance art as long as it is completed in the proper setting? What are the limits, if there are any, of performance art? In the article, Klemm states the art should reveal "the truth of being" (70). Does this mean that all performance art must be profound?
There are two interesting examples of performance art that I found.
The first is a video of Andy Warhol eating a hamburger. After viewing the video, I wondered what "truth" the performance revealed to me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejr9KBQzQPM&ntz=1
The second one I discovered is by Bruce Nauman. In this video, Nauman walks around his studio. When discussing the piece, Nauman stated, "'If I was an artist and I was in the studio, then whatever I was doing in the studio must be art'" (complex.com). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qml505hxp_c&ntz=1
No comments:
Post a Comment