Please Don’t Dump Your Garbage on the Roadside
Or, They’re Teaching You. Can’t You Tell?
Yes, it’s once again time to wade through the aesthetic slaughterhouse that is performance art. This time, I’m treating you to edited highlights of a ninety-minute “durational performance” by Katy Albert and Sophia Hamilton, aka Mothergirl. This Chicago duo tells us that their work “exhibits a strategically refracted or misrepresented view of current political and philosophical discourse, creating a space where viewers are challenged to think critically about their own relationships with feminism, consumerism, and representational visuality.” But of course. Given their talent, or at least their self-regard, how could it not?
In the video below, filmed in 2013 near an onramp in the city of Chicago and titled Don’t Sleep, There’s a War Going On, we see the ladies beating themselves around the head and face with large feather pillows. Thereby enlightening passers-by, obviously. The duo describes the piece as “a physical act of frustration – an ambiguous response to the implicit guilt of inaction and the weight of overwhelming knowledge.” If the point of the performance somehow escapes you, due to your philistine tendencies, the ladies provide clues to its deep meaning, and by extension their own brilliance: “The lack of clarity serves two purposes: to show the expansiveness of war and to allow [the] audience to access the image first and the meaning second.”
Now cower in the shadow of their artistic enormity:
As you can see, hundreds of passers-by are captivated, spellbound, entranced by this “strategic refraction.” Yes, the people in those passing cars aren’t just trying to get somewhere, possibly away, they’re gripped by the concepts of “implicit guilt,” “overwhelming knowledge,” and “the expansiveness of war.” While no doubt thinking critically about their “relationship with feminism, consumerism and representational visuality.” The ladies are just that good.
Update:
In the comments, Mike asks, “Do they actually think the bollocks they say relates to anything they’re doing?” A not unreasonable question. And though I’m not privy to the full scope of the ladies’ mental contortions, it is often the case that the flimsier and more vacuous a piece of supposed art is, the more comically pretentious its written justification has to be. It is evidently possible, not least in the world of art, and especially performance art, to hide an awful lot of crap behind rhetorical chest-puffing. And if no-one is going to call you out on this – if none of your friends and peers have that kind of integrity - then I suppose the mismatch doesn’t matter. To them, at least.
Elsewhere in the comments, Sam pores over the joint CV of our terribly daring and intellectual artists, the ones who are trying to educate us, and which includes gems such as this:
2010 M.Phil Theatre and Performance, Trinity College Dublin. Thesis: The Subversive Potential of Humour in Selected Clown Theatre Pieces by Female Artists.
Ah, catnip for employers. And so one has to wonder what our creative betters’ long-term plan is. How, exactly, were they hoping to entice employers and repay the cost of their extensive education? Is incongruous pillow flailing – sorry, “strategic refraction” – a skill in demand? Is it something the public cries out for and will rush to throw money at? What do the ladies plan to do when they’re, say, forty, or fifty? Given the improbability of such people being self-supporting in later life – at least in their chosen line, the one for which they’ve studied – do they have wealthy parents who will indulge them indefinitely? Or do they expect their talents, such as they are, to be rewarded with other people’s earnings, confiscated forcibly by the state and redistributed as artistic subsidy? And is self-inflicted dependency a thing to encourage and applaud?
I ask because the ladies say they want us to “think critically.”
I wonder is there a website challenging interwebbers to tell the difference between “performance” “artists” and meth-heads?
Hmmm.
In low doses, methamphetamine can cause an elevated mood and increase alertness, concentration, and energy in fatigued individuals. At higher doses, it can induce psychosis, rhabdomyolysis and cerebral hemorrhage
. . . . Valium, mebbe?
It possesses anxiolytic, anticonvulsant, hypnotic, sedative, skeletal muscle relaxant, and amnestic properties. . . Adverse effects of diazepam include anterograde amnesia (especially at higher doses) and sedation, as well as paradoxical effects such as excitement, rage, or worsening of seizures in epileptics.
And come to think of it, there is Michael Caine
Dr Bryant, I don’t think you’re listening to me.
Mr Collins, I don’t think you’re saying anything to me.
– Doctor, are you drunk?
– Drunk? Of course I’m drunk. You don’t really expect me to teach this when I’m sober?
Oh, and Dear All, I’m currently reading Clive James.
Regarding these Greate Artisticke Wonders, and just having read James’s commentary on a particular observer of theatre, imagine what Kenneth Tynan would have to say about them . . .
Here he is on Vivien Leigh’s Cleopatra: “Taking a deep breath and resolutely focusing her periwinkle charm, she launches another of her careful readings; ably and passionlessly she picks her way among its great challenges, presenting a glibly mown lawn where her author had imagined a jungle.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RixlNudlg94
Give this lady a grant.
This is what happens when the younguns don’t get boned with regularity. The glands get clogged, and need to be beaten with pillows.
To the principle that, to be art, a work must be not easily confused with rubbish, we must now add the principle that, to be performance art, performances must not be easily confused with crazy people having an episode.
Did someone say Rubbish?
to the tune of fifteen_thousand_dollars
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/arts/2844191/Waikato-art-award-winner-just-rubbish-artists
Jimmy,
But Waikato Museum director Kate Vusoniwailala leapt to the defence of judge Charlotte Huddleston, saying it was “an excellent decision” which had helped achieve the objective of getting people talking about art.
You have to wonder exactly how many times these hustlers are going to wheel out the same old dishonesties:
“It’s brilliant because it’s got the public talking about art.”
“Yes, but they’re all saying it’s shit.”
“But it’s got the public talking about art.”
“Yes. But – and this is rather important – they’re all saying it’s shit. Some people have suggested that you and your fellow parasites should be hunted down with blow darts.”
“But it’s got the public talking about art.”
And so on, and so forth.
It’s not even anything new. The other contestants, upon hearing of the result, should have taken the liberty of pinching off a few logs right on top of the winning entry. Now that would generate ‘discussion’!
Sadly, this ‘piece’ does fit into the still contemporary notion of ‘sustainability’ in NZ, which is literally part of art curricula at the national level (along with diversity). This is art for public bureaucrats and politicians.
When did it become common for artists to include a “statement”? A statement seems to acknowledge that art fails; why else explain? However, that assumes the statement is directed at the public. It seems more likely to be aimed at fellow artists, and to be less an explanation than a gesture of solidarity. It’s hard to believe these people want to communicate. They mainly want to be seen, and to be seen as different, and they’ll do whatever it takes. But no one wants to be different alone, and the statement, by alluding to whatever mish-mash of justifications is currently popular among their fellow exhibitionists demonstrates their belonging.
Clazy,
A statement seems to acknowledge that art fails; why else explain? […] It’s hard to believe these people want to communicate.
Much of the time it seems to be little more than in-group signalling – usually of their imagined superiority. Nothing of consequence. Though as I said elsewhere, it does communicate something, albeit inadvertently. And artists would do well to bear in mind that when they exhibit something they’re effectively saying, “This is what I think is good enough for you.” Which, given the above and much else like it, is kind of insulting.
It is very in-group, but at some point it was all for their tutors benefit. Because curriculum.
It is very in-group, but at some point it was all for their tutors’ benefit.
As I wrote in one of my very first posts,
I don’t think I could paint, sculpt or design something beautiful, something people might travel to look at. But I’m pretty sure I could mouth the kind of bollocks that quite a few artists and students use to excuse their own inadequacy.