There was a
day in class where we discussed a weird type of performance art performed by Marina
Abramović. She would do odd things like scream for long periods of time, run
naked into another person, stare at people across a table, and probably most
famously, walk the Great Wall of China towards another person. For some reason,
this was considered “art.”
If you ask me, most of the activities performed by Abramović were a bit senseless. What is one trying to accomplish with endless screaming? Or forcing people to walk between her and her partner naked? I suppose in one way, it may cause the viewer to ponder such things like personal freedom/space, the limitations of the human body, or persistence in actions. However, this was not the feeling that I got. Her performance art is done in such an extreme way that it arouses surprise and wonder in her choice to perform such odd tasks. The uncomfortable feeling her art gives you, along with this surprised feeling, causes the viewer not to ponder her arts meaning or goal, but rather to ponder why she is so weird and crazy. The extremity of her art actually lends itself to less interpretation and more criticism.
There probably are some people that find meaning in her art, otherwise I guess she wouldn’t be so famous. Her walk around the Great Wall of China towards her working partner seemed pretty interesting and actually a bit romantic. However I personally don’t see any meaning to her work, or at least any need for such extremity.
I find your reading of Abramovic's work interesting -- I think you get what's it supposed to provoke, but yes, for the general public, this kind of thing gets written off as weird-o artsyfartsy kind of stuff. Fox News had a bit of a fit when her newest piece was at MOMA (their reporting's featured in that doc I showed clips from, The Artist Is Present).
ReplyDelete