Performance Art

                In reading Klemm’s “Art as Performative Action,” I was immediately struck by his statement about the responsibility of the reader to create immediate meaning while watching performance art. Certainly the viewer of a piece of a performance art is interpreting cues as they are given, combining them with preconceived notions and beliefs, reinterpreting, etc. throughout the entire piece. However, his claim that these discernments of meaning are available only as the action is being performed seems a bit outdated. With the rise of video, it is possible to re-experience performance art for decades. Someone watching cut piece live and re-watching it years later on film may not (arguably probably will not) have the same interpretation both times. Thus, the absolute responsibility over meaning is mitigated.  

Going along with the idea of interpretation of meaning is Hershman’s notion about the video as a one-sided dialogue that “does not talk back.” I think there is an inherent comfort in this idea. It allows a viewer to interpret a video as they wish without the fear of being corrected. After all, who is going to tell them that they are wrong? Moreover, it allows a viewer to consider a piece of performance art through a variety of lenses, just as one might analyze a piece of literature through a variety of theories. 

In my opinion, this viewer-based ascertainment of meaning paradoxically burdens and relieves a viewer of responsibility. The viewer must ascribe meaning in the moment based on the cues the artist gives. However, no one is going to hold them accountable for this meaning as there is no one right answer. This seems to be the key paradox which valorizes performance art: it is both immediate and transient.

            

 I think that Teching Hsieh’s “Time Clock Piece” is an impressive and fascinating work of performance art that exemplifies the variety of ways people can interpret a piece.

http://vimeo.com/16280427