Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#60335 - 10/21/11 02:12 PM This is why I don't "get" performance art
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Blame my literal-mindedness, but seriously: WTF?

_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#60340 - 10/21/11 04:00 PM Re: This is why I don't "get" performance art [Re: Nemesis]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
This dance piece calls to mind the Kurt Vonnegut short story, "Harrison Bergeron," set in a future where the equality of all people is enforced to the extreme that talented dancers are forced to wear weights that partially disable them.

Dancers in the above video wear toe shoes which, although they extend the foot, can harm the toes and cause intense pain. The juxtaposition of the toe shoes with the walking aids could draw attention to the possibility of crippling. Yet the walking aids are used in a liberating manner.

The opening gestures are almost de-evolutionary in being arthropod-like or dinosaur-like as opposed to the more usual comparisons of ballet forms to later evolved animals such as deer and birds.

The skateboards bring in the allegedly human invention of the wheel, and the forward thrust pole reminds me at once of jousting and of spiteful cell-phone talkers.

I find this piece more thought-provoking than pretentious, plus it avoids the tedious quality that wrecks a lot of performance art IMAO.
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60344 - 10/21/11 05:35 PM Re: This is why I don't "get" performance art [Re: dust-e sheytoon]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Personally I did find the first part quite fascinating until the guy on his skateboard came along; after that it changes too fast into some sort of comedy which I don't think was the intention.
Top
#60362 - 10/23/11 02:08 AM Re: This is why I don't "get" performance art [Re: Diavolo]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
Not all performance art is ballet on swing sets.

Performance art can be something brilliant or something pretentious. Personally I am drawn to extreme shock value performance art or aggressive dangerous performance art. The problem comes to what people think is or isn't pretentious. These days if anybody talks at length about how they do their art, or even admits to liking their own art, they're labeled as pretentious. Or to most people if someone tries to experiment with a new idea or creates a sound or image that isn't already familiar they are labeled as pretentious.

My go-to is always the 80s early japanoise movement. Hijokaidan, which since moved away from extreme performance, back in the 80s they covered their stage with piss, puke, garbage, food, ect. they had a lot of fun rolling around in and throwing at the audience.
Hanatarash is a good example too. They are one of the few bands who's shows were literally dangerous to attend. The front man once accidentally cut his leg open with a table saw during a performance.
Here's a shot from one famous show where they were literally destroying the venue:


And of course I'm sure we all know GG Allin's whacky shows where he would smear his shit all over himself and literally attack his audience.

It's strange to me how most satanists seem to have a very conservative view of art. It often seems to be an infection of the silly idea that experimentation is something people do to make up for lack of technique or ability (something quite easily dispelled as some of the foremost musicians or artists in the world are experimental and all forms of art were at one time the experimental and avant-garde of their time.)
Or the idea that art is supposed to "make sense"?
Art isn't supposed to be something you "get." I tend to dislike any art that is.

Top
#60364 - 10/23/11 09:13 AM Re: This is why I don't "get" performance art [Re: TV is God]
Wicked Satanist Offline
member


Registered: 10/23/07
Posts: 244
Loc: Michigan
 Originally Posted By: TV is God
My go-to is always the 80s early japanoise movement. Hijokaidan, which since moved away from extreme performance, back in the 80s they covered their stage with piss, puke, garbage, food, ect. they had a lot of fun rolling around in and throwing at the audience.


How original, and you think that is art? It's rather disgusting and if any of those sick fucks had a disease or virus, it would be shut down... I'm not a germaphobe, but I am clean.


 Originally Posted By: TV is God
Hanatarash is a good example too. They are one of the few bands who's shows were literally dangerous to attend. The front man once accidentally cut his leg open with a table saw during a performance.


And they're the Japanese version of OZZY... all of it is for the shock value, Alice Cooper, and KISS come to mind also.

 Originally Posted By: TV is God
And of course I'm sure we all know GG Allin's whacky shows where he would smear his shit all over himself and literally attack his audience.
How can we forget...

 Originally Posted By: TV is God
It's strange to me how most satanists seem to have a very conservative view of art.


Art, and self expression is beautiful. Destroying shit for the sake of destroying shit isn't art. You just need to find some other way to vent. Unless you like to just throw your money away paying for the damages.

Also, here in the United States where the media is controled by the sheep, art on Television isn't allowed. It is coming around with some of the language and brief ass shots, but there is no real vugarity, nudity, and self expressionism at all.

I think the womans body is the most beautiful thing in the world, and seeing it plastered all over the Television and Silver Screen, i'd have to move to Europe or Russia... It's a shame of how bad were sensored here in the U.S..

Fuck Sensorship! Fuck Tipper Gore! Fuck the P.M.R.C.! ( wow, I just had a major 80's flashback! )


Edited by Wicked Satanist (10/23/11 09:14 AM)
Edit Reason: Typo's
_________________________
Forever in Darkness,
Timothy

Top
#60365 - 10/23/11 09:31 AM Re: This is why I don't "get" performance art [Re: TV is God]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
You of all people should know how subjective art can be. You like people who do random stuff on a stage. I do not. I am a very practical person. This applies not only to my sense of my aesthetics, but my emotions and every day life. I can appreciate a great deal of off-the-wall art and humor, but unless it "does" something for me why should I try to enjoy something which I am unable to? That's what art snobs are for, to "ooh" and "ahh" over glued-together objects that have been spray-painted and titled, "Dearth of Emotion".

In my view, this kind of art, much like a Pollock painting, is such that the viewer has to forcefully make connections to emotions. I could splatter paint on a canvas but I would never consider it "art"--that would insult true artists. It's the same thing Mikey from Orange County Choppers is doing. Is he an artist? If you walk through an art gallery that is filled with random blobs of color on the wall, does that really evoke any emotion? Or do you have to force it?

Dali, for instance, was an odd person. His personality and perception of the world were reflected in his paintings. The man had skill.

Just because something is weird doesn't automatically make it art. But that's my opinion.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#60392 - 10/24/11 03:13 AM Re: This is why I don't "get" performance art [Re: Nemesis]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
 Originally Posted By: Nemesis
Dali, for instance, was an odd person. His personality and perception of the world were reflected in his paintings. The man had skill.

Dali's great technical skill as a painter, his use of perspective and representation of objects and figures make his work more accessible than abstract and/or Conceptual works. Post-structuralist Julia Kristeva wrote that, "...art is the intersection of viewer and object." Within that construct, an inkblot or clouds, which may not be considered art in themselves, may become something like art when the viewer imbues them with meaning. But art also carries within it the idea of deception, of suspension of disbelief, of an agenda. And art was historically aligned with science. So art that demands or implies that viewers must imbue the art with meaning could understandably be found "empty" by some, yet "freeing" by others. There is also rampant "argument by intimidation" in the art world. Speculation and art auctions further complicate all this.

Although I enjoy some Conceptual art - and at the other extreme - some propagandistic art which states in no uncertain terms what the meaning is supposed to be, I prefer art that is more of a conversation. I like it when the artist presents their vision and their vision can allow, incorporate and inspire other visions as well. Dali with his playfulness combined with technical rigor, his intellect and heart, and the different psychological levels of his work, were refreshing.

Nemesis, have you seen Dali's collaborations with filmmakers Alfred Hitchcock and Luis Buñuel?

The intersection of art, psychology and physics in Salavadore Dali's work is exciting! In this interview, Dali talks about his paintings' "prophesy" of relativity theory (from 8:53min into the video.) He mentions the "space-time completely flexible" soft watches in his painting, "The Persistance of Memory". And Philippe Halsman's famous photo of Dali, objects and cats suspended in air reminds me of experiments involving zero point energy and levitation.


Edited by dust-e sheytoon (10/24/11 03:24 AM)
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60398 - 10/24/11 05:15 AM Re: This is why I don't "get" performance art [Re: Wicked Satanist]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
 Quote:
And they're the Japanese version of OZZY... all of it is for the shock value, Alice Cooper, and KISS come to mind also.

If you think Hanatarash has anything in common with any of those bands I really suggest you actually listen to some. I'm quite sure there's zero influence of any of that bunch in their sound or atheistic. The japanoise performers wanted to capture one thing- purely pointless destruction. And they did than any showy rock band.
Fun fact: the first known noise composer (Luigi Russolo) predates the first early rock music by at least forty years.

And another thing- do you really think Ozzy, Cooper, or Kiss invented shocky stage shows? I'd argue that while I love Alice Cooper, like a little bit of Ozzy, neither of those musicians really invented much. (I think Kiss is godawful but that's beside the point)

 Quote:
Art, and self expression is beautiful. Destroying shit for the sake of destroying shit isn't art. You just need to find some other way to vent. Unless you like to just throw your money away paying for the damages

This is what really pisses me off. The idea that art is always supposed to be 'self expression.' How does one measure the emotional value of a sound or image? All ideas of what mood or feeling a certain sound makes, except its tempo, are shown to be entirely culturally conditioned. Just like how enough years of 12 tones per octave has made westerners hear other cultures of different pitches as 'out of tune.'
The art=self expression idea is why every american folk douchebag can throw together four completely random guitar chords and sing obvious melodies over them. As long as the words have 'heart' people so how expressive of a musician they are.

Also, art is beautiful? Is that what art is to you? Beauty?


 Originally Posted By: Nemesis
You of all people should know how subjective art can be.

That's exactly my point.

 Quote:
...That's what art snobs are for, to "ooh" and "ahh" over glued-together objects that have been spray-painted and titled, "Dearth of Emotion".

Those people don't know what art is either. They're fucking morons that just want everyone to think they're deep. The sad part is everyone seems to think that is everyone and everything experimental (or at least whatever is considered experimental at the time.) This also promotes the idea that all experimental art is effortless, which is just downright silly.
I don't understand why once people see a few talentless snobs that spend no effort in what they're doing they assume that's ALL experimental art. I blame Andy Warhol, that talentless con-man. (Personal opinion- Fuck Warhol and anything he's ever touched.)

 Quote:
You like people who do random stuff on a stage

I don't believe I've ever seen a performer who does random things on stage. Sometimes things are entirely improvised, but that really doesn't equate to random. Everything I've ever shared has a clearly intended atheistic.

 Quote:
In my view, this kind of art, much like a Pollock painting, is such that the viewer has to forcefully make connections to emotions.

Gaaah more of this art=emotion bullshit. Art is not a vehicle of emotional expression, it's an aesthetic stimulus. Nothing more and nothing less.

 Quote:
I could splatter paint on a canvas but I would never consider it "art"--that would insult true artists

And again, I'm defending experimental art, not effortless art. And again people seem to act like the two are the same thing.

 Quote:
Just because something is weird doesn't automatically make it art. But that's my opinion.

And here we get to the meat of it. Why does everyone reduce experimental art to nothing but experimental? Just because something is weird doesn't mean it's nothing but weirdness.

And for that matter, in art, all weird means is unfamiliar. A sitar is weird and 'just noise' to someone who has never heard one. Yet enough beatles tunes using it and suddenly everybody seems to 'get' it.



Best example ever!
Edgard Varèse.
If his work came out today, by modern means and modern tones, everyone now would call him an effortless idiot just trying to get by on his weirdness. Which is basically how the people of his time saw him. Yet I doubt anyone here is going to challenge his position as a brilliant composer- and I doubt that has anything to do with the content of his work.

Top
#60400 - 10/24/11 08:01 AM Re: This is why I don't "get" performance art [Re: TV is God]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
You know at this point we're just arguing over who's band is cooler, right?

 Quote:
Gaaah more of this art=emotion bullshit. Art is not a vehicle of emotional expression, it's an aesthetic stimulus. Nothing more and nothing less.

To YOU, perhaps. Why are you giving everyone shit for their definition/perception of art? This thread wasn't started with the intention of waging a pissing contest over whose art is better.

 Quote:
The art=self expression idea is why every american folk douchebag can throw together four completely random guitar chords and sing obvious melodies over them. As long as the words have 'heart' people so how expressive of a musician they are.

You just made a massive generalization which you're accusing others of in regards to your "experimental art". So, any one who uses his talent as a vehicle for self-expression is not an artist? You're equating pop culture as bad art. No, it's entertainment. I don't see anyone here saying it's anything but that.

To me, the definition of art is when a person has a vision and has the ability to translate it and share it with others. Some do this better than others, and please note that I never said experimental art was not "art"--I just said that it does absolutely nothing for me. So simma down.

Just as one man's lady is another man's bitch, one man's art is another man's shit.
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#60405 - 10/24/11 03:36 PM Re: This is why I don't "get" performance art [Re: Nemesis]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
When it comes to destroying stuff http://youtu.be/MVa4q-YVjD8 onstage, Keith Moon may be the original gangsta. When he blew up his drumset on national television, the explosion caused a momentary break in transmission of the signal across the United States. The Who's songs and their playing abilities were great. They didn't really need to destroy things. But audiences liked the spectacle.

Edited by dust-e sheytoon (10/24/11 03:37 PM)
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
#60436 - 10/25/11 07:10 PM Re: This is why I don't "get" performance art [Re: Nemesis]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
 Originally Posted By: Nemesis
You know at this point we're just arguing over who's band is cooler, right?

Not really. I'm not at all arguing that experimental art is inherently better or more valid than any other artform. I'm just fighting the silly rejection of that isn't familiar and the strange belief that effortless art and experimental art are one it the same.

 Quote:

To YOU, perhaps. Why are you giving everyone shit for their definition/perception of art? This thread wasn't started with the intention of waging a pissing contest over whose art is better.

All I've said in regards to view of art is that art isn't expression of emotion, it's aethstetic stimulus. That Aethstetic may be most often emotional in nature but emotion is not necessary, and an interpreter having the same stimulus as the creator is certainly not necessary. I'm not sure how you read "my art is better than your art" in anything I've said.



 Quote:
. So, any one who uses his talent as a vehicle for self-expression is not an artist?

I've never said any such thing. Where did you read that?
Also- I never said people who right in the obvious chords + obvious melodies is an easy method that requires zero emotional investment yet it's what everyone is CONDITIONED to find as emotional.

 Quote:
You're equating pop culture as bad art. No, it's entertainment. I don't see anyone here saying it's anything but that.

Where did I say that? Also, apart from american folk, what did I say is bad art?

 Quote:
I never said experimental art was not "art"--I just said that it does absolutely nothing for me.

I know you didn't say that, Wicked Satanist did. My apologies for crossing my arguments.


On the meaning of art- I said art was aesthetic stimulus. And for that reason I don't believe that what is or isn't art is subject to anyone's taste. Art's a bit of a broken term because really the connection of something being artistic is in its subjective perception. If I think a sunrise looks pretty in a stimulating way the feeling isn't any different from if I see something man made in the same way.

Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it's not art, it must means it's not my art. I'm not at all trying to fight for what is or isn't art or what is better art, I'm just trying to address why people seem to be so hostile to anything they've not seen before, or don't understand.

Another great example: Jimi Hendrix. Hendrix would sometimes break into outright noise-music. Yet, because everybody's conditioned to see him as a rock god, everybody find it brilliant and expressive. I guarantee if you played some of Hendrix's craziest moments without telling people who played it their reaction would be "this is just noise! He's insulting people who really learned how to play!" Yet you play the same recording with a picture of Jimi in front of them they will say "He's such a genius! His guitar is like.. talking man!"

Top
#60684 - 10/31/11 10:05 AM Re: This is why I don't "get" performance art [Re: TV is God]
dust-e sheytoon Offline
member


Registered: 08/23/11
Posts: 206
Loc: NYC
This thread reminds me of the great film, Art School Confidential, where a figurative artist attended college during the heyday of Conceptual art. Here's a clip of the first student critique in the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wz2bAByWyI

Myself, I enjoy a wide variety of art movements and genres. I do tend ,though, to most enjoy the innovators who pioneered each style.
_________________________
Fly for your lives! A great magician comes! He summons armies from the earth itself! ~ ArabianNights

Top
Page 1 of 1 1


Moderator:  Woland, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, TV is God, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.028 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 25 queries. Zlib compression disabled.