What is Good Performance Art?
By on November 13, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (7)
Last night, at the end of the very heated class discussion, my friend Johanna asked, “What makes a performance piece good? Like with the lady who takes pictures with her mouth, why do people like Tom Waits go to her performances?”
The responses from fellow classmates, including myself, basically outlined that performance art, because of it’s inherent intimacy, a great deal of it has to do with the audience. If the performance matters to the viewer, the viewers respond and the piece is considered good. The artist is responsible for tapping into what matters.
This is somewhat depressing.
Why do we make things matter?
My professor said that there has to be an equal ratio of visual stimulation and conceptual stimulation. The concept has to be strong, but it also has to be beautiful.
I think this is what holds me back from all of the professors in the Art department, why they do not latch onto me. I lack the interest to keep that ratio equal, the concept is much more important to me. I have trouble with the homely details of the mediums I have experienced in art classes. Writing continues to be my strongest medium. This is not something that any of the professors in the art department at my school can relate to at all.
Do you think this is true of performance? When you think about the art that impacts you, what elements are present? Are there equal amounts of visual stimulation and conceptual stimulation in a musical performance? Let’s have it.
Tags: Performance Art, Visual vs. Conceptual
Share
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://existentialmedia.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/404
Comments (7)
I’m pretty into the visual aspect, but even pictures and presentation can have A LOT less weight and meaning when they have a weak concept.
Movies are a tough one to tackle in a paragraph, but I think moving images need to balance the two elements in a very delicate manner.
But then I’m a huge fan of radio shows, both through telling stories and/or music shows. And as far as those music shows go, sometimes I really enjoy the ones whose concept is to play eclectic, seemingly random picks.
On the other hand, I remember my parents taking me to symphony concerts every month and I was so bored visually, I would just draw or write stories on the back of the program. Sometimes full concepts for video games and shit like that, drawing characters, fighting formats, etc. It was amazingly stimulating through absolutely nothing visually, but all in context of the sound, the concept (which I’m sure I normally had no clue of).
Shit man, where does one even draw the “even line” between visual and conceptual anyway. fuck!
Posted by jordan | November 13, 2007 @ 9:44 PM
I love Ze Frank!
Posted by matthew 
| November 13, 2007 @ 11:16 PM
Maybe that’s the idea. It’s not concept or medium. It’s popularity. That works for APU. That works with Ze Frank, he’s funny, he’s got the concepts, he’s got the medium down, but what’s really important is everyone knows him.
Posted by matthew | November 13, 2007 @ 11:20 PM
ok, also.
I think you are VERY strong on concepts. It’s obvious. But the medium is just as important. The medium and the concept are one. Inseparable. If something is made really crappy you will be so distracted you won’t be able to find it’s message. So the concept has failed.
I think this is what you do right. You consistently bring the concepts home with your execution.
So what is good performance? It’s both visual and conceptual. The Art Dept. heavily emphasizes the visual and sometimes half assly pretends to emphasize the conceptual.
Posted by matthew | November 13, 2007 @ 11:26 PM
Ze Frank on crowd participation.
Posted by matthew | November 13, 2007 @ 11:29 PM
Maybe it’s too slippery to tack down. And unless something is happening in a very blank space (as most art shows do; white walls etc), there will be some sort of visual stimulation, right? In church worship services (admittedly not exactly “performance art”) I used to always be thinking about something else, like the lead singer’s hair, or the stain on the stairs, whatever. I don’t know. I agree with Matt, it seems so obvious: bad execution=failed concept, & poor concept=empty feelings at best. It’s sort of like why grammar matters, why punctuation matters, why words matter.
Laziness seems big at APU.
Posted by Victoria Bolf | November 20, 2007 @ 11:22 PM
This is good performance art.
Posted by alisha
| November 13, 2007 @ 8:33 PM