OK, so some folks have had trouble with D2L. I don't know why. I'm hoping that the problem has been fixed.
The assignment for Tuesday's class is to read pgs. 183-198 and 213-225 of the Kristine Stiles chapter. Also, I'd like you to consider the following artworks in relation to the reading assignment. I will cut you a break this week, though. In light of the problem with D2L, I won't require you to post to the blog. Instead, be prepared to discuss the two pieces during class on Tuesday. I may begin Tuesday's class by asking everyone to write his/her response in a short paragraph to be handed in to me.
Here you'll find two videos. The first is documentation of Marina Abramovic's piece "Art Must Be Beautiful, Artist Must Be Beautiful" (1975). This piece was originally performed in front of an audience, but then re-enacted for the camera because the artist was unsatisfied with the original documentation.
Here is Abramovic and Ulay's piece "Relation in Time" (1977).
This will be a great semester! I'm looking forward to class on Tuesday.
The two videos posted here have an interesting connection to a few crucial points that Kristine Stiles brought up in her text “I/Eye/Oculus: performance, installation and video.” To begin, the article outlines the historical development of performance, installation and video in the contemporary art world. Stiles states in her text that, “the rapid development of these three media in the 1960s reflected anti-commercial values of mid-century alternative cultures.” (Stiles, 183). This was an intentional shift for many performance, installation and video artists as a way to break away from traditional, modernist notions of art-making. More specifically, most performance artists are not generally concerned with the commercial value of art, rather, the conceptual intention behind an artwork is the most significant value.
ReplyDeleteIn “Relation in Time,” Abramovic and Ulay are “tied” together by their hair. As time passes, the video documentation of this performance indicates that the knot in their hair changes over time, i.e., the knot falls apart and they have to reconnect themselves over the course of sixteen hours. This specific performance is not something that can be bought or sold by art collectors. In this way, by doing this performance (and the other performances they performed over the years), Abramovic and Ulay were outwardly rejecting and rebelling against the traditional notions of art solely functioning as a commodified object.
In the first video posted, “Art Must Be Beautiful, Artist Must Be Beautiful,” Abramovic directly addresses her audience, saying the words, “art must be beautiful, artist must be beautiful,” while continuously brushing her hair. As a woman addressing and informing her audience that both art and the artist “must be beautiful,” Abramovic is both highlighting and ridiculing two cultural ideologies: that both art and women only function as objects of beauty in our society. Stiles mentions in her text how feminism and female artists, “have made major contributions to all styles of performance, especially to discourses of the body and the presentation of female-defined subject-positions with positive images of agency.” (Stiles, 197). By performing an activity that is associated with female vanity, Abramovic’s work falls short of presenting femininity with positive images of agency. While she is, quite obviously, ridiculing the notion that the female must be beautiful to look at, she is still perpetuating a female stereotype, rather than challenging it. This argument, of course, would change if further along in the performance Abramovic brushed her hair to the point where it fell out, or if she somehow distorted her beauty by performing this act. If this were to happen, then it could be argued that Abramovic is highlighting the violence or abuse against women in our society, but this is hard to define without knowing what else happens in the performance.
-Kate Brandt
Marina Abramovic’s piece “Art Must Be Beautiful, Artist Must Be Beautiful” has me thinking about the role of feminism in the development of performance art. As Stiles points out “Any discussion of the history, reception and political potency of performance must acknowledge the key role that feminism played in its development” (197) . Women are predisposed, due to centuries of being treated as commodities, and therefore scrutinized for their physical attributes and “performance” of femininity, to use their bodies to communicate.
ReplyDeleteFreed by the feminist movement to reconsider the messages communicated with their bodies and take ownership of this language, women were able to use it to their advantage. In this work Abramovic uses this vocabulary to question how women and art (both valuable commodities) were intended to please their buying public, wealthy men, by being easy on the eyes.
Another layer of this performance that is hard to ignore is the fact that Abramovic is, well, beautiful. I thought she looked beautiful in this performance…is that weird? Was that her intention? If the performer’s body is the medium in performance art, how much control do performers have over this medium? Is it more a kin to collage and assemblage then other forms of art? How would this work be different if Abramovic was not beautiful? And what would that mean? It reminds me how limited and influenced we are by our outward physical appearance.
Watching “Relation in Time” I am immediately struck by the difference between being an audience member for a live performance vs. a prerecorded performance. The audience that came in for the final hour became part of the performance; their coughing, breathing and presence visibly affected Abramovic and Ulay and has been recorded and preserved as part of the document. Compared with my own viewing that was entirely voyeuristic and not participatory. We have become so accustomed to this type of passive viewing. In this way the influence of video on performance is profound. A live audience is no longer necessary to have a performance, how does this one-way communication affect both the artist and the audience? Does our surveillance society really render us stable and submissive, as Stiles suggests (224) ? I have to admit I find this terrifying. Well we eventually forget what it’s like to be in live physical presence of other people and forget what it feels like to be watched? Isn’t the act of receiving feedback, both verbal and non-verbal an important element in performance?
-Anna Helgeson
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEach of these works directly addresses the issue of performance art’s rejection of becoming a commodity that Stiles mentioned in I/Eye/Oculus, “...performance art remains the only art able to evade complete absorption in global capitalism.” (Stiles, 196) This is my favorite aspect of art that is performative, it’s not an object to be judged by the amount of money it generates.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with Kate Brandt’s view that Abramovic is perpetuating the female stereotype in her work “Art must be beautiful, Artist must be beautiful”. My reason is that I think Abramovic’s bodily manipulation (the act of brushing her hair) is actually a way of affirming her role as the artist. While I would agree with the notion that she is performing to beautify a female body and perhaps this does play on the stereotype of the narcissistic female, I believe that her act of hair brushing does not portray such stereotypical narcissism. The brush and comb function as implements of art making (paint brushes or charcoal) and rather than having a male body act as artist in this performance, Abramovic claims her position as the art maker. I believe this is a direct criticism of two major issues - the iconic female nude that is intended to be looked at and the notion of the master artist who was always male.
“Relation in time” is an interesting performance that seems to function as a meditative artistic practice. At first, the image of these two artists bound together by their hair could be a visual representation of the exchange of ideas, “putting their heads together”. Their extended period of silence and their lack of visual communication makes me second guess my initial interpretation. The performance seems to be more of a test of endurance for each of the artists. Furthermore, despite their apparent lack of communication they relied on each other physically for support during the duration. I think that this need for the body of the other suggests the strengths of collaborative art practices. Eventually, their slumping postures and other movements of fatigue are evident in the unraveling knot of their hair. I am left with the question of what they believed was significant about their endurance. The only answer I can come up with is that their performance was a testament to self-sacrifice for their art. I would be interested to know if anyone else in the class had considered the same question and if so, what their ideas are.
a. parsons
What I understood from Marina Abramovic’s “Art must be beautiful” video was not just the implications of feminism but an example of what video art is all about; the artist human body as medium. “The two most significant aspects of performance art are that the artist’s body serves as the primary medium and that it communicates through both presentational and representational means”(Stiles 186). What Abramovic is presenting in this video is that art must be beautiful, she is communicating this in two ways: she utters it over and over again; and two, she is brushing her hair in an attempt to achieve this. Since she is the medium, she is the work of art. It would be easy to attach this video to notions of feminism, but I feel the subject of the video is about her alone.
ReplyDeleteThe other film by Abramovic and Ulay, “Relations in Time” was harder for me to dissect. Since I am new to video and performance art, at first viewing of this video I felt there was no point to it what so ever. But after a few more viewings and reading what other students interpreted it about I find it more clear. This performance is about the ownership of the work of art. This work belongs only to the two performers; other people may have witnessed it, either in the audience or in subsequent videos, but this work cannot be sold, bought or reproduced. It only exists on the heads of Abramovic and Ulay.
Patrick Walter
In the chapter we read, Kristine Stiles pointed out the distinction between metaphor and metonymy, and I spent a good amount of time considering it and still feel as if I misunderstand their meaning. She points out that metaphor ‘signifies both is not and is like’ and metonymy ‘signifies both is connected to and is like’ (p.185). After viewing the two performances I reconsidered these terms and how they might apply. Stiles writes that performance, installation and video all use both metaphor and metonymy and that they ‘reintroduced a direct connection in art, by presenting human subjects who were doing real things similar to the actual human subjects viewing them” (185). I asked myself, do these performances create a direct connection with the viewer, specifically me? What is meant by a ‘direct connection?’ Is this phrase defined within performance only in opposition to metaphor, or can it be interpreted in a literal sense? Is it a direct connection with the viewer, or is it only referring to the art-making process sans audience?
ReplyDeleteIn “Art Must Be Beautiful” the documentation that I am seeing had been recreated specifically in order for Abramovic to perform for the camera. I hear a car engine in the background and the echoes of a larger room, but I do not hear the presence of other people in the room. Because of this, I am assuming that the recreation was specifically for the camera. Still, I feel no direct connection to Abramovic either physically, metaphorically or metonymically. I brush my hair with the same sense of time that she does so I fulfill Stiles’ criteria for metonymy, and I understand that it goes beyond metaphor because she is utilizing herself as the canvas. I am still confused as to the idea of ‘direct connection’ though. Does this phrase not apply to the viewer? In actuality I feel significantly separated from what I am viewing because it only exists to me on a computer screen. I suppose one of the questions I am getting at is, how is video performance art different from and beyond a metaphorical representation on a canvas? The example Stiles gives for metaphor is a painting of a bird in lieu of the actual bird. How is an electronic image either on tape or a hard drive not the equivalent to an image on a canvas? For this piece, I am misunderstanding its metonymic nature.
The “Relation in Time” performance further complicates the distinction between metaphor and metonymy for me. I feel the same in relation to it as I do the other performance, in terms of not having a direct connection to it. I can see how a direct connection with the viewer existed though in its actual real-time performance for the one hour in which the audience was present. The live presence of being in the same space as the artist while they are in the process of making the art seems to be what transforms a metaphor into metonymy for me. Otherwise I don’t understand the distinction and the video that I watched still seems to simply be a metaphor, because it is not the actual experience of the performance.
Laura Bennett
After viewing "Art must be beautiful" I did see it as Marina Abramovic's attempt of trying to make a statement about feminism which Kristine Stiles also discussed in her writing "I/Eye/Oculus: performance, installation, and video". I see Abramovic making this statement that women are always under the pressure to look there best and beautiful. She is also stating that art is kind of stressed under the same criteria. Although she is not trying to make her self look like that ideal women so she is breaking out of the norm by brushing her hair over her face and in a sense almost making herself look less presentable. Since this is performance art she is performing a 'non-beautiful' piece creating a double standard.
ReplyDeleteAfter viewing "Relations in Time" by Abramovic and Ulay it helped me to understand the basics of performance art. Throughout the clip you can see that the knot between the hair is slowly coming undone, which actually does suggest that there was movement throughout the 17 hours. I do believe that before they were "performing" for an audience they moved quite a bit more and tended to have different posture. Although I agree with my other classmates that the performance is about ownership and that it does belong to Abramovic and Ulay, I don't agree on the fact that it can only belong to them. The idea and concept will always only belong to them but the performance can belong to anyone that has viewed it because they have now shared that with us.
Amber Blanchard
The two videos posted bring up many ideas of the medium of video and performance in relation to the readings. In the first video with the artist Maria Abramovic, the performance piece is very short though it brings on ideas about the subject. As stated in the readings "The two most significant aspects of performance art are that the artist's body serves as the primary medium and that it communicates through both presentational and representational means." The artist herself is the subject of this piece and therefore brings on ideas of how the subject should appear in performance. It also has representational means about women in art as being nothing more then a subject for which the artist is to make something beautiful.
ReplyDeleteIn the second video, Abramovic and Ulay's piece "Relation in Time" the two artists using the medium to show a shift overtime. In the article the author writes about how "technologies are changing working methods, ways of seeing, the environment and, ultimately, the future." These artists show the unraveling of thier connection overtime using the medium and showing how time affects us all, the piece isn't something that just sits there and is timeless, it develops and changes.
These two pieces of performance art are interesting to see due to the different styles in which they are presented, the first video, which was a trasnparent look into the artist's world and the second video that was a documentary style work to show the passage of time. It is interesting to see how much of the performance becomes the piece of art as in the first video or the idea is the piece of art as in the second video.
Alex Ninneman
In the assigned reading I gained an understanding about the history of performance, installation and video art. In relation to the reading, the two videos presented on the class blog demonstrated the idealistic intentions for an artist conducting a performance. One, being able to express through motion the emotion which inspired the artist; whereas, a still image or painting would fail. Second, allow the audience time and convenience of rewinding the video to examine or ponder the exhibit or performance in order for them to create an idea similar to the one the artist was inspired with for the performance.
ReplyDeleteI think the invention of video enabled the performance media to expand or flourish due to the reproduction of the event. The aura of the space where the event took place would not be captured the performance would. In Chapter 5, Kristine Stiles writes, “Because installations are situated in discrete cultural contexts, often relating to, or being inspired by, their direct environments.” After I read that I felt the essence of an installation would be lost while reproducing it to video. However, video art is of it’s own and recording a performance or installation on video is one of many uses for the video media.
The two performances, rather one performance and one installation, were closely related in the sense that the main protagonist was hair. I think the agitated Marina Abramovic was disguised by her beauty and soft voice. I wish the video was longer so I could have embraced the performance for what it was. The length of the video was short therefore, leaving me frustrated. The second video was successful in it’s performance due to it’s narration. The relation in time titled allowed me to mesmerize how the two individuals became separate over time. I thought the two were among their own imagination during the performance or installation, I’m still not sure, because there wasn’t any interaction between them.
The first video, Art Must be Beautiful, certainly does represent the feminist readings as other students have already suggested. Kate Brandt makes good points in her post about the piece highlighting and ridiculing art and women. Kate also points out that performing an act of female vanity does not challenge the female stereotype. While arguably true, this also brings up the issue of narcissism that Rosaline Krauss is quoted saying in the reading (Stiles, 219.) Viti Acconci’s piece Air Time is also cited and noted for its intentional “narcissistic effect.” One could potentially correlate intentional narcissism with Art Must be Beautiful simply because of the vain implications of Ambramovic’s actions.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, going off of Amber Parson’s post, Ambramovic becomes the art maker. In fact, she appears as the art and artist on the same time. The viewer does not just see her as an artistic piece, but she is creating herself as the performance progresses. Naturally this has feminist implications and is probably meant to be viewed as such.
Relation in Time didn’t have as obvious or as numerous readings as the first video. It is clear many students have become frustrated in attempting to interpret it. It is clear that while connected, the two individuals were very separate from each other as they were not even facing each other, nor did they interact with one another during the duration of the performance. When the audience did arrive, the two artists did not interact with them either. In a sense, this creates an alienation effect, or verfremdungseffekt that the reading cites specifically (Stiles, 222.) While this performance may not be as well defined as Acconci’s Open Book that the Stiles cites, it arguably alludes to it.
-Rebecca Margis
Being a painter, the area of performance art is a new subject to me. The writings of Kristine Stiles point out some very interesting similarities and differences between my area of art and performance. “The two most significant aspects of performance art are that the artist’s body serves as the primary medium and that it communicates through both presentational and representational means” (186) This concept is very powerful and unique to only this area of art which gives it strength but also alters the purpose for which performance art is used. The video “Art Must be Beautiful” touches on several issues here. Some of the other comments posted suggest that it touches on the issue of feminism and the concept of the female body as simple object of beauty. I think the video pushes it further to questioning social ideologies of what art and artist “should” be and represent. Asking more what the role of art is in our society today. As time goes on and technology develops art continues to change in its format and meaning.
ReplyDeleteVideo is one of these developments. “Technology has changed from a tool to being and entire technological environment that suggest new creative potential for human discourse and opens new epistemic space for the construction of knowledge.”(213) Art is a tool and artists use it in a variety of way to convey ideas and capture emotion. I am not entirely sure that I understand the ideas behind the second video “Relation in Time”. It obviously captures a span on time that passes and the changes that occur in this time, but it is hard for me to read into it further to find other meaning as some have. I feel those in the audience may better interpret the meaning of the performance at the last hour. Like others stated it seems that the first video is geared more toward an audience watching the video while the second may have better interpretation for a live audience.
Kelly S
I decided to take a different approach in watching the first video. I watched Marina Abramovic's piece "Art must be beautiful. Artist's must be beautiful" first without reading any description what-so-ever. After watching the piece, I stopped to think, and read about it, then watched it again. At first I didn't understand what was going on then it clicked. I thought it was very interesting that this piece directly related the performance with the artist. I also liked that the medium was a person, rather than a "pretty" picture.
ReplyDeleteThe second piece also had the idea to use the artist(s) as the subject matter. This piece, "Relation in Time" created by Abramovic and Ullay, was very sensitive to time and how the body will react to fatigue while it is tied to another body by their hair. It was very intriguing to watch how their hair and bodies unravelled as time went on.
According to Kristine Stiles, "Performances often resemble ritual, psychological and sexual self-analysis or psychodrama, and in them artists enact the simple conditions and relations of everyday life and behaviour" (p. 186) this fits well with both pieces shown above. Of course and everyday thing isn't being tied to someone else's hair, (or brushing your hair while thinking you need to be beautiful). We all can feel tied to someone or something else in our lives and it can be a challenge to get away. Also, at some point (or multiple points) in our lives we may feel that we aren't the best that we could be. We feel that something or someone is portraying what we should be. Sometimes we need to take a step back and realize that we are who we are and we don't "need" to be like anything else. We don't need to conform.
In the readings, Stiles defines the different applications of perfromance art - performance, installation, and video – and how they can often appear together (Stiles, 187). In "Art Must Be Beautiful, Artist Must Be Beautiful," Abramovic seems to be commenting about the perceptions of women as objects or possibly about how people can mistakenly connect physical beauty with the beauty of that person's piece. I percieve that when she ferociously combs her hair while presumably looking into a mirror, seeming worn out. She seems to be judging her work's merits based on her outwardly appearance, or at the very least, believes that he work can and will be judged that way. I believe it attempts to "transform the object of male natural history, the material 'woman,' subjugated and enslaved by the male creator, into an independant actor and creator" by highlighting the perceptions of art and artist. (Stiles, 198) What I found most interesting about Abramovic's work was that while these differnt forms of performance art were combined into one artistic piece, what the viewer is actually watching is a reproduction of that original work in with which she was unsatisifed.
ReplyDeleteWhen I watched Abramovic and Ulay's "Relation in Time," I thought about relationships. Two people are physically tethered together where if one tried to leave, it would hurt not only the other person, but themselves as well. Instead of just feeling inseperable, they actually are inseperable, relying on each other for one's own comfort of discomfort. It also shows how time can affect one's comfort level. From the beginning to the end, you can see the subects grow increasingly tired - apparently sleeping at some points. In addition, the tied hair begins to show signs of splitting and wear. The final hour seemed to be their attempt to "mingle" with persons ouside their comfort zone, as you will, despite their possible unease. It seemed similar to Bill Viola's "The Quintet of Rememberance," except it was more about small variations over a long period of time rather then a short period of time. It seemed to relate to what Stiles said about how time in video can call attention to "the perceptual and psychological tensions in various qualities of time." (Stiles, 221) While the physical audience and the video audience were only present for a fraction of the performance, video allowed us to see their uncomfortable transformation over time while sparing the audience the unease of the entire experience.
J. Michals
In both of these pieces, the body is the means to the end of expression, exemplary of 1970’s performance art. In Abramovich’s “Art Must Be Beautiful”, she is specifically addressing the notion of art and women as commodity. But what I found interesting is how she is addressing the topic of the manipulation of beauty into product for consumption using a medium specifically designed to be readily available, accessible, and easily digestible. “Anyone could pick up a camera and make this form of art, video held the potential for cultural critique and, from the beginning, was understood as a technology for the production of anti-establishment imagery” (Stiles, 213). She literally picked up a camera and made a video of herself acting like a neurotic woman obsessed with beauty, bluntly stating, “art must be beautiful, artist must be beautiful”. And although the use of her voice and body as a medium to communicate is effective, it is within the medium of video that her message of commoditization is truly realized.
ReplyDelete“Relation in Time” on the other hand was intended for an audience, albeit after what must have been an excruciating sixteen hours of sitting back to back. Simply the endurance is what I found to give this act its significance. As I watched, I noticed their positions change, the bond between them weaken and repair, and one giving strength to the other, leaning when the other seemed to need it. And then the audience walked in, and I wondered what the significance of the audience really was. Was it simply to have people witness this physical feat? Was it to demonstrate the lack of the corporeal nature that art “should” have in order to be bought and sold? I’m not sure, but it does seem as though they perk up a bit when the audience comes in, as if to say, “look at what we’ve done, witness our love for one another.”
Dustin Springer
Both of the two pieces shown have aspects of the two of the three forms of art that were spoken of in the readings, video and performance. In Marina Abramovic’s “Art Must be Beautiful”, it does state that it was once performed in front of an audience yet the video is not from that so that could be argued. None the less the piece did seem to come off with the same goals as Carolee Schneermann’s “Eye Body”. “the predominance of female nudes in seductive poses” was something in the text talking about “Eye Body” in which I believe has a relation to what Marina had in mind with Abramovic’s “Art Must be Beautiful”. Not exactly the nude part of it, but the motion of combing her hair forward and backward isn’t exactly what most people consider something that would make ones appearance beautiful.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Abramovic and Ulay’s “Relation in Time”, it in a way separates the video from the performance yet not the performance from the video if that makes sense. Reason I say this is because we do not see the people and the viewers’ reactions. This was obviously because they wanted the people watching the video to have what they took from it be from the performance and not the people watching it. While in some and many performance art pieces that is a lot of what the artist and the viewers look at and analyze, the reactions from the art work.
Corbin Manning
In the reading by Kristine Stiles I/Eye/Oculus: Performance, installation and video she gave the reader a history of how video and performance art started and how the historical era is blossomed out of shaped the media art of that time.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed that all performance artists are trying to achieve a goal or realism and movement within a piece that can’t be easily created or duplicated again.
Stiles relates the realism in the media art to that of ancient Greek paintings and sculptures from the Hellenistic era. I’ve never thought of that relationship before. That a goal of media artist was to achieve a sense of realism like that of ancient Greece.
Stiles makes crucial points in the reading about how media art blossomed from the end of World War 2 through out the 1950’s and 1960’s.
In the video, “Art is Beautiful, Art is Beautiful” by Marina Abramovic is very short and I had to re-play it a few times to understand what she is saying in the beginning. Once I realized that she was saying “Art is Beautiful” it made me think about art as being not only a piece that can hang on a wall but the human body as being an art form in it’s self. Specifically, the action that Abramovic is performing in her 27 second clip, she is brushing her hair while repeating, “Art is Beautiful, Art is Beautiful.” Perhaps she means the art of being a woman is beautiful.
In the 2nd video by Abramovic and Ulay’s piece “Relation in Time” it features Abramovic and Ulay with their hair knotted together sitting for a 16 hour period, during the 17th hour the audience was allowed to watch. Several times throughout the last hour their hair begins to fall apart or become undone, in a way recreating the decay of time during this event. I don’t know if this directly relates to the previous video but hair could be medium is this piece and be seen as beautiful, for it’s many different uses, textures and shapes.
Kelsey Gunnlaugsson
In “I/Eye/Oculus: performance, installation and video.” Stiles discusses the role of feminism in performance art. The first performance on the blog, art must be beautiful; the camera is focused straight on to Marina Abramovic. She is brushing her hair and while she is doing that she says “Art must be beautiful.” Then Abramovic goes on and continues brushing her hair till the video ends. This video is quite short but still seems to share a quite secretive relationship with Abramovic and the audience or viewer. She is sharing her frustration with us about women having been used as the produce of art to share a message.
ReplyDeleteThe second video, “Relation in Time” was different in the set up compared to the first because of the live audience that came for the 17th hour. You could tell when we, Abramovic and Ulay heard the audience arrive the mood was completely changed. It is something much different to perform, or sit in front of an audience than to sit with out one.
In watching both of the performances “Art must be beautiful” was much more dynamic than “Relation in Time.” It also gave you words to think about which could lead to many different ideas to the meaning. However, the static silence in “Relation in Time” could in a way be even more thought provoking, and we could think about the relationship of Abramovic and Ulay in the first 16 hours in contrast to the last hour.
In the assigned readings, I was given insight about performance-based installations, exhibits, and video art. The two videos we screened on this week’s blog were comparable with how the subjects used their hair as a prop but very different in concept.
ReplyDeleteMaria Abramovic’s “Art Must be Beautiful” performance has ties with femininity. The artist stares off into the distance as she brushed her hair chanting
“art must be beautiful, art must be beautiful.” I think how women are perceived to present themselves in our culture and many other cultures in the world challenges them to look a certain way. With her performance, Abromavic, challenges the viewer to challenge culture, not to rebel but to re-think if popular culture is the best conductor to run your mind.
I felt I could be as experienced with the second performance as the audience were as they walked in. After being locked by hair for 16 hours, the two artists allowed an audience in as they remained tied for another hour. This feat was exposed only for the seventeenth hour. But he video documentation gave me a look at the progression of the entire 17 hours. (granted the video was only a couple of minutes) I had thoughts of communication struggles or relationship struggles-experiencing life but seeing something different. I am not sure how to pinpoint my interpretation other than communication or relational barriers.
Stiles. On page 194, talked about the “predominance of female nudes in seductive poses,” this made me reference the first Abromavic video, “Art Must Be Beautiful.” Historically, paiting has had ties with posing nude women in erotic or sexual positions for, perhaps, to seduce the buyer into purchasing the canvas. After reading this chapter, I think Stiles could very well used Abromavic’s work to describe the intent of her performances as opposing the (pre)modern era of painting.