When reading Carlson’s article I found the idea of performance being an “essentially contested concept,” a bit overwhelming (Carlson 1). Understanding that there is this grey area of interpretation, opened my eyes a bit to the way we as undergraduate students think of theatre/performance. One of the functions of performance as described by Carlson, that stuck with me as being especially true was that “the task of judging the success of the performance...is in these cases not the responsibility of the performer but of the observer” (Carlson 5). I think that the actual judging of performance is something that we are all familiar with. Whether or not we consider ourselves theatre practitioners, anyone and everyone can act as observers. This is crucial when thinking about whether or not a performance is to be considered “successful.” I think that there is this assumption that our opinion of a performance is somehow more important because we are theatre majors, but if we are all given the same task of judging the performance, what makes our opinion more significant than anyone else’s?
An event that I feel challenges the idea of performance occurred in 1964 with Yoko Ono’s Cut Piece. In this demonstration, (I put a link below to a video) Yoko Ono sat on a bare stage next to a pair of scissors. She invited her audience to cut off a piece of her clothing one by one. With no other instructions and without saying anything, she sat still throughout the entire performance while the audience cut away at her clothing. It starts out quite tame as members of the audience cut away small pieces from places like her sleeves. The end result is rather disturbing as members of the audience start cutting away at her bra and underwear. This piece of feminist performance art challenges our conventions of theatre and performance as there was no script, nothing was rehearsed, there was no display of skills (as offered by Carlson). There was simply one women putting herself at the mercy of her audience. Despite these things we must consider this a performance because of the setting and context in which it took place. It was a planned event that was set in front of a participatory audience. There is then the question of who exactly was/were the observer(s) and who was/were the performer(s)?
Link to Cut Piece (1964):
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI believe that the idea of what makes a performance successful lingers in the back of each and every performer’s mind as well as its audience. This is something that to me is a natural humanistic trait because as humans we have the innate desire to want to reap great results if we have truly applied ourselves to the work. Now of course the depths of work differ from performer to performer, but inevitably we all yearn for a successful response (praise, pat on the back, flowers, compliments, etc.). As observers the desire to be “theatrically satisfied” and what that entails can range from technical elements, set design, costumes, and of course the actors themselves. I agree wholeheartedly that as theater majors and MFAs we feel that our opinion of a performance is somehow more important. Is it because we study theater and performance so we feel we have an idea of what fosters a successful performance or is it just our artistic egos?
In Peter Brook’s essay The Empty Space he discuses four types of theatrical performances. One that we have all experienced and tie into opinionated differences about theatre is called “deadly theatre”. Deadly theatre is a form of theatrical performance that references productions that have lost their liveliness. A reason that could cause a theatre to be good or deadly could lay in its audience. “If good theatre depends on a good audience, then every audience has the theatre it deserves. Yet it must be very hard for spectators to be told of an audience's responsibility. (24)
I bring this up because as theatre majors and MFAs it’s imperative that we are positive and engaged audience members. Of course we’ll still have our opinions on if the performance is successful, but I think we can only truly define a performance if we allow ourselves to be invested in the performance.
-Amar
Josh--
ReplyDeleteI love this- thanks for sharing. This video is a wonderful example of the Fluxus art movement that really saw its heyday in the 60's. In addition to Yoko Ono-- John Cage was also quite involved in this movement (and was one of the subjects of my blog this week.) Fluxus was also heavily influenced by Dada and Marcel Duchamp and in many ways its intent is to be anti-art. These performers/artists did not want to create things that would hang on museum walls forever. They were quite obsessed with the ephemeral, fleeting moments of life. Those involved with Fluxus would have called this kind of a performance a 'happening.' Happenings were actually created specifically to challenge the public perception of what was real life and what was performance. They were often staged in unconventional, outdoor or public spaces, and focused on engaging an audience in an unexpected way. All of this adds up to make this a wonderful example of something that both challenges and supports Carlson's attempt at defining performance.
In this example its also very interesting to think about what moment does the audience go from being a passive observer to being a participant? Was it the moment they entered the space, or the moment they got to make their cut, or was it the moment they started thinking about what cut they wanted to make, OR was it the moment that they saw someone else thinking about any of the above?? My point is that the room was filled with performances other than just what was happening on the stage. I can imagine there was a great deal of anticipation about what you would cut when it was your turn. Its also interesting to think that because Yokos relationship to the others in the room was so direct that perhaps they were the performance and she was the audience? Regardless, I think that this performance is a great example of something that raises all the right questions.