[-empyre-] more and the question about performance
shadowtackle at sbcglobal.net
Sun Nov 16 05:33:13 EST 2014
represented by other means in the sense that the floor didn't need to be swept or if it did that wasn't the point - what was being represented was the labor, above the activity, or specifically spectatorship... so the work of sweeping transferred to the work of watching sweeping?
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:38 AM, Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com> wrote:
I do want to reply, briefly, to you here.
You state (the quote didn't work):
a thing, to be art, must represent a thing by other means. so, the life in
a flower (a feature of time) is re-presented in arrangement (a feature of
space). [barba, dictionary of theatre anthropology]
- and it seems to me, that "to be art" - in order to be art - is
problematic; certainly there has been a lot of writing on the iconic (in
Peirce's sense) to claim otherwise - a thing can represent itself. This
was fundamental to a lot of West Coast feminist art from the 60s and 70s -
where sweeping a floor for example wasn't representing sweeping "by other
means" but was exactly what it seemed - work. Chris Burden played off this
a number of times as well.
So when you state
to represent killing by killing is anti-performance.
- for me it's performance, a horrifying one, but performance nonetheless.
(I'm always suspicious as well about anti-anything, such as "anti-poems,"
"anti-art" etc.; these exist within the same fold.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the empyre