Drama 360 FALL & WINTER 2009/10/Thursday November 5: The Neo-Avant-Garde 1952-1969 (Fluxus, Happenings, Situationists) ***

'''1.	Goldberg, Roselee. “American and European Performance from c. 1933: The Live Art.” Performance: Live Art 1909 to the Present. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Incorporated, 1979. [PAGES: 79-96''']

I especially liked the idea that “it might sound like a totally determined one, is made essentially without intention so that, in opposition of music of results, two performances will be totally different”. Just like in class, when we’re encouraged to always do, never pretend, everything is always a performance. No two performances, although they may be intended to portray similar messages, will ever be the same. Each time something is created, it is new and fresh, and never before seen in the same light. Additionally, it was stated “art should not be different than life, but an action within life”. I think that this brings up the same kind of idea, in how performances shouldn’t be staged or rehearsed, but rather done.

'''2.	Klein, Yves. "Anthropometries of the Blue Period and Fire Paintings: Two Performances." 1960. (8 Minutes) http://www.ubu.com/film/klein.html '''

I found both these pieces intriguing in that I was trying to get more from it both times. I found when I first started the video I turned the volume on my speakers as high as it would go, wanting to hear what Klein was saying to the women and reactions of people watching in the first piece. The movement of the women reminded me of an innocent elegance, being instructed in what to do, but encouraged to find their own way as well. After the first piece I thought the whole point was to create a physical,canvas work of art by provoking attention to the idea of what used to be there. After watching the second piece however, after so much work was put into the painting and positioning of the flames and bodies (much more particular about what limb went where, etc.) we as the audience didn't even get to see the finished work. I think this piece is focused on the journey and freedom of experience, whether feeling comfortable in nudity or envisioning the movement solidified.

'''3.	Vautier, Ben. "Some Ideas for Fluxus." ubu.com, 1989. http://ubu.artmob.ca/sound/fluxus_anthology/Fluxus-Anthology_04_Ben-Vautier.mp3'''

OR

'''1.	Kaye, Nick. "John Cage." Art into Theatre: Performance Interviews and Documents. Amsterdam: OPA (Overseas Publishers Association), 1996. 15-24.'''

Wood and screws in a piano? I can’t even imagine what that would sound like but now I’m curious. And curiosity lead to looking it up on the internet. So, if anyone else is interested, here’s the link to ‘Music of Changes,’ oddly enough, set to Civil War Era art.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXTvAGIzWnU On that note: This actually sounded a cooler and intriguing to me that I thought it would. I like the discord of it. I like the... spooky. I’m failing to figure out exactly how to describe this, but that is often my problem. I can show you all the images you’d want to describe it.

And this led me to listening to more of his stuff. I’d suggest you also do it to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJagb7hL0E - “4;33” -Wow. Just... wow. At first I was like “wtf is this?” But then I just kept watching. And they all turn the page in time too! It’s ... fascinating. I can’t even speak about this. Just watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcHnL7aS64Y I’d watch this one after 4:33. It’s John Cage talking about sound and silence. I think this man is brilliant. “You mean it’s just sounds?!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSulycqZH-U - “John Cage performing "Water Walk" in January, 1960 on the popular TV show I've Got A Secret.” -This one I found fascinating and I think more entertaining to watch AND listen, than just listen. The most interesting thing to me was why people laughed when they did? What prompted the humor in such simple acts?

There are a bunch of other compositions of his on Youtube, as well as a documentary on him. If you’re as interested as me, then I’d suggest typing his name into the search and scanning what comes up. :)

I'm very fascinated with Minimal Art which Kaye mentions in his interview. I really like the idea of being able to see something in many different ways; whether it's because the lighting or your position has changed. I think this is true for everything in life, because based on how a person sees something, many people can look at the same thing and it can appear different to all of them. Taking a closer look you could see more flaws or beauty in something, or perhaps they could be one in the same...

'''2.	Ono, Yoko. Cut Piece. 1965, New York. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3dsvy_yoko-ono-cut-piece_shortfilms (8 Minutes)'''

The thing I took away from this piece is that "chance performance" aspect, leaving the artistic creation of this piece up to the audience. The way the piece moved was directly up to the audience, but I also saw that in this piece, there was something revealed in the audience. For example, when the two men came up, they started cutting away around the bra area. Now what does that say?--Cody.thompson 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

At first i found this video strange and dull until more and more of her shirt was being cut away. now this wasnt because of the fact that her close were being removed, but it-like mentioned above- revealed something about the audience. also mentioned above was the strangeness of how the men chose to cut around the bra area while the women cut around areas like the hem and sleeve. i thought this was interesting as well and that lead me to notice the contrast between Yoko's attitude and the attitudes of the person doing the cutting as well as the unseen audience. when the person cutting would cut a sensitive area or walk around a few times "deciding" where to cut, the audience would laugh and make comments and the cutter would cut casually while Yoko would remain completely still and expressionless. i felt this was credited to the audience and cutters management of how uncomfortable the situation was. i believe that cutting the clothes off of a famous women i dont know would be particularly awkward and uncomfortable and i feel that laughter and make believe casualness was the audiences way of dealing with this. i would like to know what point she was trying to make by having her clothes cut off? a statement towards removing conventions perhaps? --Elisa Mancina 04:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

What I found noticeable about this video was the expression on the woman's face. Although it appeared as though her face was neutral in emotion, underneath a sense of discomfort and selfconsciousness was present. I was also amazed by the audience's comfort on stage, especially that, as mentioned before of the men, and how they would take their time for the most part and cut fairly sizable peices off the clothing. I found this performance quite creative and unique but I was left wondering what the intent of this performance was. Was it to evoke a sense of discomfort or empathy, was it to try and convey a message about theatre, society, or human behaviour, or was it to just simply experiement a certain situation?

I also agree with Elisa on the point that I do not understand the point of the video. But then i began to question myself, does it really have to have a point? Anyone could interpret it in any way in which they wanted. There is not set ground rules on how to interpret a performance where the audience cuts off the clothing of a woman. Some members may have been completely captivated and engaged when cutting her clothing off, while others (like myself) would have been completely uncomfortable. I thought this was a very powerful video, even if i couldn't capture the point. My interpretation of it, was cutting away material self to reveal her true self, but, to each his own.

After watching the video and reading the first couple of comments, I would have to disagree with the points made that the men seemed to be more likely to cut around the bra area. It seemed like a fairly even ratio to me. But to get back on topic: Elisa brought up the point that she wasn’t sure what the point of this performance art was and I am kind of wondering the same thing. More specifically, I am curious as to what the historical contexts were at the time of this piece. Also, I feel as though the title of this work “Cut Piece” is representative of something, although I’m not exactly sure of what that is; Cutting in terms of physical release to rid oneself of pain? Cutting of ties to a social norm? I suppose the possibilities are limitless and open to interpretation.

I won’t lie, this video did seem a bit strange but of course there is always some symbolic meaning that can be conveyed, such as the clothes that is being torn can be really her ideals and morals being broken down by society. We are influenced by the littlest things. Her face is completely neutral like stated above but I think this was a good contrast because how does the audience know if she is simply hiding her emotions, or genuinely feeling impartial about the situation as a whole.

'''3.	Vautier, Ben. "Some Ideas for Fluxus." ubu.com, 1989. http://ubu.artmob.ca/sound/fluxus_anthology/Fluxus-Anthology_04_Ben-Vautier.mp3'''

The audio recording by Ben Vautier was definitely something else. I’m not really sure what the point of it was but I liked it all the same. Vautier suggests how one would go about finding inspiration for a piece (I think, to tell the truth I could be totally off, this may just be a man who recorded a few moments of a ether high) I digress…. He first suggests that to create a fluxis piece only has to just sing a song about Billy Boy and his wife. The second suggestion is that one might try to eat the record. If the record is too hard to eat than throw it out the window. I think I’ve entirely missed the purpose of this recording but so long as nobody is being decapitated by renegade records being thrown from windows, well I guess we can let vautier say whatever he wants.

In the Kaye article he discuses discipline. John Cage metions discipline especially on page 19. "It is really quite amazing how many disciplined people are undisciplined." I feel that by that he means that even the most disciplined people can create wonders when they are out of their set discipline, which leads me to believe that maybe being disciplined is a good thing, but maybe being undisciplined is a better one. He continues to go on and talk about a piece of music where the group was focused to playing and it comes out perfectly, but when they have to do actual work, or it becomes a game they become completely undisciplined. He speaks of discipline again on page 24 when the interviewer askes, "chance as a discipline." Cage responds quoting what Tudor had called him earlier saying that, "I was a chance operation." I found that quote extremely enticing but in all honesty, I just can't figure out what he means. Also in the article he mentions his piece of work, Thirty-Three and a third, where there are record players and with records next to them and the audience will go and choose what to play. This is a lot like the Yoko Ono piece. She sits on the stage and people come to the stage and cut off a piece of her clothing. It is a very perplexing piece of work because of the audience interaction. For the artist you never quiet know what to expect. Like in the Kaye article when Cage talks about 'accepting any interruptions' you never know when the audience will ask questions, or ask for your autograph. Pieces like the Yoko Ono you have to expect the unexpected, and she certainly did when the man cut off her second layer, that was the only point in the piece in which she moved, which I found very shocking and I felt she did as well.

In the Kaye article John Cage mentions that “...the only things that we really enjoy experiencing are the ones we don’t understand.” (pg.19), then proceeds to say “I don’t enjoy anything I understand.” (pg.19) Although this may be true for him, it’s not necessarily true for all. I am more entertained and further interested when I have somewhat of an understanding about the experience I am having internally. My reaction to an idea is heightened when I have an understanding, or at least a clue, about how to approach an answer. For me, an answer is the understanding of what I personally believe to be true or false. I would much rather “know” than struggle to seek out the answer. However, when it comes to art forms, enjoying art doesn’t necessarily mean that I need to understand it to enjoy it. Art has endless possibilities...

I realized from Kaye's article was that in leaving a performance up to 'chance', we take away the ego, because one can no longer take responsibility for the work. The audience can take the responsibility along with whatever experience they made for themselves, and the performer is left with an experience that no longer belongs to them.--Cody.thompson 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely love it when I don't understand something. It gives me somewhere to go. I become intrigued and begin to try to work out what it is that I don't understand. Don't get me wrong, I also can enjoy stuff that I understand, but then I tend to just enjoy it and forget about it. If I want to remember something without trying it has to be something I really had to think about or research to understand. Of course all of that really depends on how I feel too. Some times thinking is simply not an option. However, all things being equal, give me something I have to work out over something easy.

I can imagine that performing "Cut Piece" takes a lot of courage and Yoko Ono is very brave. I would always be wondering where the audience would cut next and it would frighten me; I think we all hope that strangers know their boundries and adhere to them. But as we were talking in class about how to push ourselves, whether it be by confronting our fears or starving ourselves to come up with ideas, this performance did just that. As for some of the comments mentioned above: in Nick Kaye's reading John Cage is quoted as saying 'It should be clear to anyone from nothing being done that there are no intentions.' Perhpas the performance was an example of chance with no intentions.

What I think is so interesting about John Cage is that he is an innovator to artists. He pioneered music. I really like the idea of taking a piano and innovating it to create a percussive sound. I love playing my guitar for example but I am always interested in new sounds and ideas. Playing the same concept bores me. Another concept that I think is fascinating is the idea of silence. This allows the audience to listen to their surroundings and take in the environment around them. Everyone will have a different experience because we all here things in a different way. Our ears choose what to focus on. - AZIZ

Someone stated above does a performance have to have a point? And I have quite a big issue with this because,I used to always think it did. What are you doing on stage if you don't have something, anything you want to convey?! Honestly, I was never one to go watch something if there wasn't a point but this year I have broadened my range a bit by looking and asking myself why not instead of why? Instead of looking at the Yoko Ono piece and asking myself why are they cutting her clothes the question that should be asked is why are they not always cutting her clothes? I also find Cage's desire to play with silence completely invigorating because silence is so incredibly powerful but we as humans don't use it enough--maybe it's a fear that we will feel awkward or maybe we just don't know how to be comfortable in silences.-Courtney Keen