Performance art - Marina Abramovic (2)
I refer to an article in Newsweek, April 2010 entitled The Naked Eye. It discusses a number of occurrences at Marina Abramovic's (MA) The Artist is Present at MoMA, NYC.
"Is a museum's white-walled context the only thing that separates artistic nudity from porn?"
We are talking about whether nudity being in a museum makes it functional, acceptable and free from dirty associations. Dirty, not sexual, because sexual is acceptable, isn't it? I cannot relate to the word porn very well. The word 'porn' is just like the word 'art', a subject for endless redefinition. If an artist or model is nude inside or outside a museum with no intention to arouse people or herself, it cannot be porn, regardless of who is bothered by the sight.
I have been fascinated by nudity in public and when it might be acceptable. One of my dreams is being exhibited nude in a museum. You can read the beginning of a story I have been writing for years (!) on Erica Chappuis' Une Vie d'Artiste, July 3 2010. I tend to think you can get away not only with nudity but even with porn in museums, certainly in those in Europe, as long as you produce a convincing reason. Masturbation, the female variety, features in my story as you will see in due course. By the way, my own intention for my dream would be to play with arousal, mine and that of the audience. The protagonist in my story's intention is not to do so, mind.
At MA's show "several visitors have been asked to leave for interfering with the work" and "a man with a 30-year membership was barred from the museum for life after he groped one of the performers" and "one [performer] told a reporter he'd felt erections against the back of his hand more times than he could count" and "one of the male models was asked to leave his post after he became visibly aroused." This is not supposed to happen. Performers and the audience alike are supposed to be in control of their reactions and physical manifestations. MA is a mistress of control. Her disciples and her audience evidently not. The original Imponderabilia (1977) had MA and Ulay naked in the doorway, until they were sent away by the authorities after a number of hours. I am sure MA, Ulay and his member behaved, but how about the audience then? There is no record I am aware of.
Are we, the high-brow art lovers, supposed to not experience lustfull feelings because we are above all that? Or only not show our feelings? As long as we admire the cunts, cocks, breasts, asses in a composed manner, all is well, although we are really supposed to consider the light the work sheds on the human condition. We should be pretty good at it now, compared to when MA first began in the 70s. These days the (near-)nude form is pressed upon on from all directions and at all times. Is our behaviour worse in spite of this? Or because? Or is the cause the erodes moral we entertain? Will we ever learn? Should we ever learn?
Perhaps the audience should only have been admitted when nude themselves and treated to a good talking to by MA herself if they offended the rules.
"Is a museum's white-walled context the only thing that separates artistic nudity from porn?"
We are talking about whether nudity being in a museum makes it functional, acceptable and free from dirty associations. Dirty, not sexual, because sexual is acceptable, isn't it? I cannot relate to the word porn very well. The word 'porn' is just like the word 'art', a subject for endless redefinition. If an artist or model is nude inside or outside a museum with no intention to arouse people or herself, it cannot be porn, regardless of who is bothered by the sight.
I have been fascinated by nudity in public and when it might be acceptable. One of my dreams is being exhibited nude in a museum. You can read the beginning of a story I have been writing for years (!) on Erica Chappuis' Une Vie d'Artiste, July 3 2010. I tend to think you can get away not only with nudity but even with porn in museums, certainly in those in Europe, as long as you produce a convincing reason. Masturbation, the female variety, features in my story as you will see in due course. By the way, my own intention for my dream would be to play with arousal, mine and that of the audience. The protagonist in my story's intention is not to do so, mind.
At MA's show "several visitors have been asked to leave for interfering with the work" and "a man with a 30-year membership was barred from the museum for life after he groped one of the performers" and "one [performer] told a reporter he'd felt erections against the back of his hand more times than he could count" and "one of the male models was asked to leave his post after he became visibly aroused." This is not supposed to happen. Performers and the audience alike are supposed to be in control of their reactions and physical manifestations. MA is a mistress of control. Her disciples and her audience evidently not. The original Imponderabilia (1977) had MA and Ulay naked in the doorway, until they were sent away by the authorities after a number of hours. I am sure MA, Ulay and his member behaved, but how about the audience then? There is no record I am aware of.
Are we, the high-brow art lovers, supposed to not experience lustfull feelings because we are above all that? Or only not show our feelings? As long as we admire the cunts, cocks, breasts, asses in a composed manner, all is well, although we are really supposed to consider the light the work sheds on the human condition. We should be pretty good at it now, compared to when MA first began in the 70s. These days the (near-)nude form is pressed upon on from all directions and at all times. Is our behaviour worse in spite of this? Or because? Or is the cause the erodes moral we entertain? Will we ever learn? Should we ever learn?
Perhaps the audience should only have been admitted when nude themselves and treated to a good talking to by MA herself if they offended the rules.
Labels: functional nudity, Marina Abramovic, performance art
posted by Vanna Vechian | 1:10 PM
<< Home