Re: [-empyre-] performance, site and situation

[Ryan Griffis <ryan.griffis@gmail.com>]

On Oct 23, 2006, at 11:37 AM, G.H. Hovagimyan wrote:

> I find that most academics do not understand performance art  
> insofar as they are writers and come from a tradition where  
> language is the primary vehicle of expression.  Language is the  
> foundation of theater.  Performance art comes from fine arts not  
> language. Trying to analyze performance art without recognizing  
> it's first impetus (prima facie) origins in the Beaux Arts  
> tradition creates a false analysis.

Seriously? This seems to me an argument for disciplinary readings  
based on internal consistency and specialization. Not to mention an  
odd reversion to some a priori notion of intentionality/authenticity.  
Perhaps i'm reading this wrong, but i don't know why an analysis  
becomes "false" because it doesn't assume the perceived origins of  
what it analyzes.
The Beaux Arts traditions were also based on a pretty exclusionary  
foundation, so i don't know why anyone working from previously  
excluded subject positions would want to identify with them.
Hence the comments about "transformation." One could argue that the  
"transformation" that takes place in a Sprinkle performance has  
nothing to do with "men" (who may want to "cross-dress" or not) - her  
"audience" was often women learning about and enjoying their own  
bodies, while coming to grips with the ways in which they are always  
commodified and objectified.
This is just an example that could be applied to a limited number of  
her works, and isn't meant as a totalizing account. Just an example  
that could be argued with, countered, supported, disputed. i have  
lots of problems with many examples of re-appropriation (as i  
mentioned before, the problems of "authenticity" are one major one) ,  
but they're not based on generalizations and abstractions.
One could also say that the "transformations" enacted by many  
performance artists was/is a transformation of (sometimes just a  
resistance to) the very model of the Beaux Arts tradition and the  
delineations that would, say, lend power to statements like  
"Performance art comes from fine arts not language."
Gomez-Pena is a linguist. Adrian Piper a philosopher.
No doubt academics get a lot of stuff wrong, but so do lots of  
people, including market-based (or free-wheeling) professionals. And  
last time i checked, language was the primary form of expression for  
most people.
Surely, this wasn't meant in this way, but i just want to make sure  
we're not bandying about catch phrases and "common sense" without  
following up on their implications and specificities. :)
best,
ryan