Does performance art still have the same impact?

Introduction

Performance art is a genre of art in which the art is performed live usually by the artist them self, sometimes with collaborators combining visual art with dramatic performance.

There are many performance artists still about within today’s times creating evermore unique, bizarre and impactful performances for audiences and the public to witness and derive meaning from. The aim of this essay is to research into performance artists of the past and present studying artists from the pioneers of this art form such as Chris Burden and Marina Abramovic and modern day performance artists such as Clayton Petett and the performers within climate activist group Extinction Rebellion to see if performance art is viewed differently to what it once has. Has it become more or less shocking? Does media present it in the same way? Is it more loved? More hated? Or is the stance more neutral to the mass audience.

The History

The term “performance art” only became widely used around the1970s although the history of performance art can be traced back to futurist productions and dada cabarets of the 1910s. Futurism being announced in 1909 with the publishing of a manifesto by Italian poet and editor Filippo Tommaso Marinetti coining the word Futurism and reflecting his goal of discarding the art of the past and instead celebrating change, originality and innovation in culture and society. Dada an art movement involving art, poetry and performance formed during the First World War in Zurich in negative reaction to horrors of war. Dada artists often created satirical and nonsensical pieces.

Throughout the 20th century the method of performance was seen as a new medium of expression. This gave opportunity for art to spread throughout endless avenues of live performance, physical movement and impermanence in which artists could express their creative ideas aside from permanent static paintings and sculpture considered as the traditional ways of art which could be brought, sold and traded as a commodity. Performance artists see this art form as a way to eliminate the need for art galleries, agents, brokers, tax accountants and any other aspect of capitalism. A sort of social commentary on the purity of art. A main purpose of performance art has always been to challenge conventions of traditional art for it can become very entrenched within conservatism, no longer answer artist’s needs, or become too enmeshed within the traditional art world, too distant from ordinary people. If this happens artist’s often turn to performance art to find fresh new audiences and experiment with new ideas. Performance artists can very often go to extremes for their art garnering big reactions from their audiences evoking shock and confusion breaking social norms of the everyday. 

Chris Burden

““Limits” is a relative term. Like beauty, it is often in the eye of the beholder”

Chris Burden (1946–2015) produced some of the most shocking works in the history of the 20th century art world in America. His gestures seemingly where inartistic in nature although easier to understand within the context of conceptual art during the 1970s. From mid 1960s through the mid 1970s conceptual artists produced works that rejected the standard ideas of art claiming an articulation of an artistic idea is enough to suffice as art. A pioneer for performance artist’s, Burden always drew an audience through bizarre and extreme performances and was seen as a madman for his acts of self infliction. Locking himself within a locker for five days, playing dead on the ground in the street under a canvas, crucifying himself to the front of a Volkswagen beetle and even holding knife up to a reporter’s throat who was interviewing him.

The violent images of war in Vietnam shown in media at the time provided a background setting for Burden. His work not only testing human limits but further challenging viewer’s takes on their own moral compasses, widening their understanding of ways in which art can serve humanity pushing strong messages. His relentless series of risky, dark and bizarre performances demanded audiences examine the nature of vulnerability and question personal and social responsibility. In 1971 Chris performed the piece “Five Day Locker Piece” at the University of California which he rigged a locker with five gallons of bottled water. He sat inside the middle locker ‘Number 5’ whilst below him an empty five gallon bottle in which he could urinate into whilst locking himself within this locker for five consecutive days. This performance set the beginning of his “body works” where his performances focused on physical feats. His voluntary incarceration produced anxiety within powerless witnesses. He continually challenged the relationship of the artist and the viewer with creating simultaneously political, profound and obscure pieces.

In Burden’s piece “Shoot” he was infamously known for getting shot in the arm by his friend with a .22 rifle from a 15 feet distance. Taking place within a gallery space with an audience of ten people. Burden commented on the piece simply saying “At 7:45 p.m. I was shot in the left arm by a friend. The bullet was a copper jacket 22 long rifle. My friend was standing about fifteen feet from me.” His commentary cold and journalistic revealing motives behind his performance piece. The act greatly echoed media and what was going on within America at the time.

Footage of the Vietnam War presented in media became just another product of mass media consumption incorporated into the normal lives of the average American person, Burden wanted to capture this objectification and suffering showing it in a new light that opened the public’s eyes. Theoretically viewers could interrupt his performances at any moment but chose not to. His work challenged the viewers and their morals on whether to act in the sphere of his art but also within the larger context of humanity in general. Burden questioned the role of art itself and how powerful it could be. To what extent could art be something more precious, elite and distant?

“Shoot” created discomfort within the audience because unlike viewing a painting it broke down the traditional separation imposed between public and private areas of performance. This performance accomplished what writer of the book “The Art of Cruelty” Maggie Nelson describes as “full-fledged assault on the barriers between art and life” dissolution of the expected barrier which usually comes within art between representation and reality. It is one thing for Burden to entertain the idea of getting shot and him actually inflicting real pain getting shot without assuming a character or acting it out making it difficult for the viewer to comprehend more so with Burden avoided delivering a verdict leaving decision making to his audience.

The controversy that came after “Shoot” is only as prevalent as what the viewers of this piece say it is. Horror author Brian Everson states, “In life, violence happens to you. In literature, you make the choice to pick up the book and read, to continue reading.” Although viewers and critics went into uproar over Burdens act when push comes to shove they were the ones who allowed this piece to happen and allowed it to affect them willingly observing it. An art group in Russia named Collective Actions which organised performances throughout the 1970s and 80s refer to what they call and “empty action” any action an artist performs at first can be viewed as empty. Only when observers reflect on the action does it then become real and carry meaning. In other words this description shows how “Shoot” Was meaningless until discussed. Only when people reacted and conversed spreading information about it within the media did it have more social and political significance.

By mid 1973, almost two years after “Shoot” it had become prey to sensational journalism. In an interview within Avalanche (July 1973) Burden commented on how his audience had been shifted away from “art people” After a “little number in Esquire" on the phone he heard ”Hi! This is Don Steel on WKEP in Texas, are you Chris Burden?’ ‘Yeah.’ ’Are you the artist?’ ‘Yeah.’ ‘What are you going to do next?’” Burden was exposed to forms of publicity that most artists never have to deal with. He became known as “Chris Burden, the artist who shot himself.” It may have seemed Burden had set in play a too empirical version of what is private and a too general version of the public although his concern was more so with the documentation of this performance piece speaking of a canny and post minimalist understanding that relations between what he called “primary and secondary audiences” (those there to witness his piece and those who read about it later on) believing they were integral to his work. Burden repeatedly put his audiences under stress which could produce possible communal response although Burden’s audiences did not or could not mark themselves out as communities defined by their difference from the generalized amorphous public and this potentially could’ve been one of the points “Shoot” aimed to push. Burden’s work is described by Frazer Ward within the book ‘No Innocent Bystanders- Performance Art and Audience’ “negative interference of an ideal public realm” most performance pieces are, a reason as to why they gain so much attention. They break boundaries of what is considered normal in society. Curiosity and morbid intrigue can get the better of audiences from something or someone breaking norms.

A sarcastic title of Plagen’s newspaper commentary of “Shoot” refers to Burden by saying “He Got Shot – for His Art”. Although his situation could’ve possibly been a life or death situation if something went wrong such as slip up, little was at stake. If Burden had been killed or suffered from a more serious wound he would not have been considered a hero of the anti-war movement nor a martyr to art but would have been subject to more intense disapproval and ridicule. His audience would have found themselves with more serious ethical issues to answer and guilt for not intervening let alone his friend holding the rifle. As for the article “He Got Shot – for His Art” despite how dumbfounded this statement sounds it can’t be denied that his performance got everyone talking. Was this performance piece really as stupefying as the Plagen newspaper makes it sound when it caused so much reaction, discussion, theorising and deep ethical questioning?

Marina Abramović

“If you leave decisions to the public, you can be killed”

Similar to Chris Burden, Marina Abramovic tests the limits emotionally and physically of the human body within her performance pieces. Many of her pieces having opportunity for audiences to interact. Within Rhythm 0 (1974) she invited her audiences to freely interact with her however they wanted with seventy two objects set out on a long table in front of her. Marina wanted to know how far society would go if she did not do anything and gave them the freedom to do what they want. Curious about how reliable human nature was. Objects on the table ranged from relatively harmless to dangerous with things such as a comb, lipstick, cotton, flowers and the more dangerous whip, matches, chains, knives and finally a gun and bullet. She wrote instructions stating that the objects on the table can be used on her as desired, she is the object and that she takes full responsibility thus for a period of six hours she subjected herself to the hands of the public. She stated ‘the experience I drew from this work was that in your own performances you can go very far, but if you leave decisions to the public, you can be killed’. The piece started to escalate with a member of the audience slapping her most likely wondering how she’d react or if there would be any consequences. With the revelation that there were truly no consequences members of the audience began to adapt to one another’s behaviour with the assumed mindset that if everyone contributed not one of them would be singled out and held wholly responsible and would be remembered as a group, not individually for their actions. The audience became more extreme. Her clothes where cut up, she was exposed, rose thorns where pressed into her and an audience member held a gun to her head amongst other despicable actions. For this and other performance piece’s Marina has been ridiculed with performance artists seen as an easy target. Despite the audience mistreating her within this performance piece outside viewers dismissed her as an exhibitionist and a masochist however nowadays her work as become more appreciated despite the few inevitable fans of her believing she’s become a sell-out. She is now known to be a star within the art world creating large exhibitions and even collaborating with celebrities such as Lady Gaga and gaining fame and wealth. Marina stated that she didn’t make art for the fame or the wealth but “I make art because I believe in art.”

Abramovic also recreated a past performance piece of hers “Thomas’ Lips” (originally performed in 1975) she redid this piece 14th November 2005 which involved Abramovic repeatedly incising a five- pointed star into her stomach using a razor blade. A point in the performance Abramovic prepared to cut herself again but was interrupted by a young woman within the audience who’d been getting increasingly uncomfortable to the point of tears. She called out with a shaky but clear voice “You can stop. You don’t have to do this” a male voice responded assertively saying “Yes she does” before the young woman left. This did not happen within the original performance this exchange showing possible transformation of the audience that the work put in play. “Yes she does” showed the audience that viewed Abramovic’s body as just the spectacle of art however “You can stop. You don’t have to do this” suggests an opening up of community caused by Abrovamics gesture of harm against herself. This response from an audience member was a defining one holding the possibility of breaking the barrier between artist and viewer and further opening up towards a community in which thinks about what they’re viewing and refuses such actions occurring in the name of art to be justification or an excuse to let them go ahead. Intervening and leaving, refusing the silent spectacle of art the woman took up the ethical challenge of the work.

With the internet being a widely used form of communication within these times Marina has garnered attention from a strange group of online conspiracy theorists who believe she is some sort of cannibalistic Satanist this is something that deeply bothers Abramovic. She said “I’m an artist, I’m not a satanist. They Googled me, and I am perfection to fit a conspiracy theory.” But at first glance it’s not all that surprising people think this, she includes many five pointed stars within her work such as laying in the middle of a burning star, having the star cut into her skin and even having a house in the shape of one but a bit more research reveals that these stars are not pentagrams in which people relate to satanic ritual but symbols from her communist childhood. Although this isn’t enough for some people who see her performances involving blood, themes of death and her long black hair and believe she is really not an artist but a satanist. Although she can also laugh at the ridiculous nature of it she also stated “It’s horrible because it gives a shadow to the meaning of my work.”

Clayton Pettet

Art School Stole My Virginity

“It was almost the media that was the performance”

Central Saint Martin’s student and performance artist Clayton Pettet is infamous for his performance Art School Stole My Virginity, the piece went viral before it even happened due to him announcing that he was going to publically loose his virginity to another man as a performance piece in front of 100 people at the age of 19 . He claimed to have been planning this performance since he was 16 and stated ‘I’ve held on to my virginity for 19 years and I’m not throwing it away lightly’ this statement alone caused outrage and disgust within a society which considers sex a taboo and vulgar subject. The Rev Sharon Ferguson, of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, said: ‘as an art project in front of the audience, where is the love, respect and mutuality in that?’ this showing the opinion the majority had on this performance and the significance they assigned to the concept of virginity. This outrage sparked all before the performance actually happened.

When it came to the time of the actual performance people had brought tickets to view, there was actually no sex involved. Instead the performance was more bizarre. On April the 2nd 2014 according to Dazed digital and others who experienced the performance, they were invited to former BBC London headquarters which converted into a performance space for immersive theatre. A crowd of 120 gathered to watch Petett within a small performance space. A video of a pile of bananas was projected onto a wall. A broom brush and a silver bowl of water were arranged precisely on the concrete floor. Pettet’s friends marched out shirtless only wearing black undergarments with white shrouds over their heads. In silence they held up cardboard signs reading things such as “ANAL VIRGIN” Petett himself came out onto the performance space wearing the same although without a white shroud. All over his body where scrawled words “NSFW” and “TEEN WHORE” amongst others. He proceeded to scrub these words off him until his skin was red. One of his friends grabbed his hair and started to cut chunks of it off, another carelessly smeared black paint over his mouth. Three of the friends and Pettet trooped downstairs the remaining friend walking and choosing audience members to follow the group. Those who stayed behind had to watch a video projected of Clayton Pettet eating his way through a pile of bananas with Serge Gainsbourg's "Les Sucettes" playing, alternating with audio recordings of talk show hosts deriding and discussing Pettet and his performance. The audience left to watch the video where finally led down to the basement, one of Pettet’s friends sat regarding graffiti scrawled upon the walls "MY NEW ANUS, PUT IT IN" and "Performance art is shit. Get a grip and pick up a fucking paintbrush”. One reading simply, "#trending" reflecting upon the media coverage of Pettet’s statement about losing his virginity for art. Another line of graffiti read “Part 2- penetration booth” inside this booth Pettet sat with two piles of bananas in front of him. One audience member recalled him saying "I am your anal virgin," "You are my partner. Pick up a banana." After they did so he continued to say "Now penetrate with my mouth eight times." Which they proceeded to do. He took the banana and snapped it and asked the audience member to leave. At the end of the performance one of Petett’s friends cut off his pants with scissors and placed a white hood over his face finishing the performance with them all leaving the room.

Many audience members tweeted about the event afterwards “Tonight I saw Clayton Pettet perform 'Art school Stole My Virginity'. Still not quite sure what to think. It was everything I did NOT expect” Steffen Michels, “I am completely embarrassed by #ClaytonPettet 's performance... Piece not even about #sexuality. Worst thing ever + audience got hungry” - Suzanne Zhang, “So disappointed with Clayton Pettet's performance yesterday. Art hoaxes are fine when its thought out and creative #ArtSchoolStoleMyVirginity” - Dr Rohit K Dasgupta (all via twitter) a few disappointed by the performance and taking to media to vent this to those who also expected Pettet to actually lose his virginity in public. Within Dazed digital’s interview asking Pettet whether he was ever going to actually have sex for his art piece he responded “No. I’ve always said I didn’t believe in virginity, so it kind of defeats the point if I’d actually lost my virginity for my art show! It was always about me stealing the word ‘virginity’, rather than having it stolen from me” Pettet explained “I think if people were expecting something else, it shows what they really wanted. They didn’t want an art piece; they wanted to see me have sex. If they came for the art, they wouldn’t be as disappointed - they’d know there were things to read between the lines for." He talked about how nervous, uncomfortable and awkward the audience members were face to face to him being made to penetrate his mouth with a banana reflecting how society made him feel about his own virginity.

Getting in contact with the artist over Instagram and asking him why he chose the medium of performance art to share his message over maybe a painting. He responded via voice message saying “I was nineteen, at the time I genuinely was a virgin in terms of what society deems as a virgin, I really hadn’t done anything. There was this desperation I had to talk about virginity and why it meant so much to people and also the pressure of being young and having to lose your virginity. I kind of wanted to emphasise what virginity was by doing something so repulsive to people that people would actually deconstruct it. That’s why I essentially did it at the beginning but then it became more about how social media interacted with sexuality and homosexuality so it was almost the media that was the performance over the actual performance”

Extinction Rebellion performance art

The Red Rebel Brigade

“We wanted people to almost empathically feel and understand our message”

Performance art has also been used more recently by the international climate activist group Extinction rebellion noticeable the most within protests in London in order to garner the public’s attention and spread the message of the climate crises. Extinction Rebellion also known as XR was established within the UK and globally recognised in order to start protests and draw attention to global warming and the climate crises happening currently which need to be addressed for it will keep getting worse. Within the group performance artists help participate in many peaceful protests greatly drawing attention to what otherwise would be the usual protests with people holding up signs and a chanting.

The now iconic Red Rebel brigade, who’ve become involved with XR, are instantly recognisable and eye catching to the everyday passersby. Their costumes cloaks of bright red a clear depiction of flowing blood representing what unifies us with all species. Serious expressions and passively moving through society their performance shows them to be ghostlike. Their presence puts on a mesmerizing display and pushes the message of the continued bloodshed from environmental degradation. They appear at roadsides and tube stations, their mere presence within an ordinary setting creates a strong impact. There can be a lot of tension in the streets when XR protests happen, many people angry if they block them from getting to work and other destinations as well as police walking around looking out for trouble within these majorly peaceful protests and arresting people but with the calm meditative movements of the Red Rebels can change the atmosphere. The performance by the red rebels have shown to de-escalate tensions between police and protestors with times where they would silently stand in front of police with palms open the police being confused and unsure to react to these beings who don’t pose a threat but a very impactful presence, the reaction from the police humanising them more with the performance being poignant and emotive rather than intimidating. The Red Rebels came from the mind of Bristolian Doug Francisco, founder of The Invisible Circus launched as a street performance troupe in the 90s. Doug admitted “I didn’t realise quite how big an impact they were going to make. I wasn’t anticipating the press pick up but the visual is very strong. People relate to it a lot, the red thing. People always seem to remember it, like it has this universal resonance.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, performance art has always made a huge impact and garnered emotional response and conversation throughout the years. It still succeeds in doing so nowadays, even more so with the help of how quickly things spread through social media. In fact discussion and media can be a huge part of performance art, spreading it from person to person giving it more meaning and theorising from a wider audience. As Clayton Pettet stated “It was almost the media that was the performance over the actual performance”. With technology and apps such as Twitter within current times information can trend very quickly such as Pettet’s performance. This shows that subjects that break social norms, which performance art usually succeeds in doing, cause people to react and discuss whether witnessing such things first hand or hearing subjects discussed via media. Performance art continues to push strong messages, leading the audience to question themselves and their views on subjects whether they are to do with their moral compasses, the concept of virginity, the climate crises and more bringing a new dimension to art and the art world and helping audiences see things within a new light whether they like it or not.

References:

Frazer Ward, No Innocent Bystanders Performance Art and Audience

https://tinyurl.com/3y8y4yef

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/p/performance-art

https://www.theartstory.org/movement/performance-art/

https://www.thoughtco.com/performance-art-history-basics-182390

https://www.theartstory.org/artist/burden-chris/

https://amp.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/may/14/chris-burden

https://artlark.org/2021/04/11/chris-burden-the-artist-who-shot-himself/

https://tinyurl.com/rkt98sr5

https://tinyurl.com/yfy9fwzd

https://www.royalacademy.org.uk/exhibition/marina-abramovic

https://georgiakoko.weebly.com/case-study-1-marina-abramovic.html

https://mozartcultures.com/en/rythm-0-by-marina-abramovic-review-for-the-wonder-points/

https://tinyurl.com/suybsss

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/oct/07/marina-abramovic-im-an-artist-not-a-satanist

https://news.artnet.com/opinion/marina-abramovic-new-world-order-explainer-1838223

https://tinyurl.com/2zmch5zp

https://tinyurl.com/3j8drwer

https://www.roundlemon.co.uk/zest/the-body-in-protest