Art as Performance Enactment

                I found the ‘Performative Act’ piece very meaningful and accurate.  The idea of the viewer assuming responsibility for giving their own meaning to a piece of work is really interesting and subjective. If an artist puts countless hours of work into making a video and the viewer does not perceive it the way the artist intended, is the piece considered positively? Conversely, if the author puts something together that lacks intention, vision, and a core idea, but the viewer loves it, then how is artwork really measured and how important is the preparation of the work? I think there is no right answer to these questions and that’s what makes them captivating. If we rely on the viewer’s own interpretation, it is fair to conclude that artwork is not created for the viewer, but instead for the joy of the artist- and that’s what makes artwork so unique.

                Later in the piece, it discussed the importance of movement of the player in the play. The author rights that the movement of the player is not as important as the movement of the play itself. This is another interesting concept because it puts the play before the players. What about if the play is solely focused on the performance of the player? A performance I found relevant to this discussion is “Place Matters” by Clint Smith. He passionately proclaims a piece about the troubles of the youth in DC. He uses hand motions to relay that passion. In addition, the camera does not just focus on his face, but centers around his hands at some points as well as the surrounding area. The movement of the camera and of the player are important to relay the expression and emotion of the actor to the viewers. The choice of the videographer to not just focus on the speakers face for the entirety of the video justifies the point made in the article. Movement by the speaker is important, but it only supplements the movement within the entire play itself.