Performance art in the context of EAI

[negative potential]

i can't tell how much of that is a joke

The stuff about tribunals was obviously tongue-in-cheek, the rest wasn't. Thanks for the link. Hadn't seen that before.

[jkudler]

yeah, that caused me to be unclear about the rest. sort of weird choice of target, as i think diego tends to be more explicitly politically aware in his work than 90% of the stuff that gets discussed here.

beyond that, i think it's generally risky to proffer formulations to the effect that certain kinds of activities necessarily detract from other, more ethical, political, or noble ones (although i personally fall prey to them, particularly vis a vis art/music). aside from the implied tyranny of how we should spend our time, it contains a ton of assumptions with regard to lifestyle.

-jesse

[Dan Bennett]

Regarding Mr Chamy's intervention "Poverty is Being Stolen" (about which the interested reader may learn more here http://sites.google.com/site/diegochamy ... io-poverty), the same mr Chamy stated the following:

"Some people (mostly close to the organizers) wanted to argue with us about what was written in the flyer, completely misunderstanding the purpose of it: the text attempted to work as a literary device and not as a statement about which it makes sense to argue with"

O Rlly.


Then your text failed. Time to move to plan B mr Chamy. You're an improviser, no?

[notoriousd]

Time to move to plan B mr Chamy. You're an improviser, no?

I think he used to play the drums, but nowadays he just talks nonsense over other people playing instruments, or plays samples of himself talking nonsense

[jkudler]

"he used to talk nonsense over other people's instruments or play recordings of himself talking nonsense, but now he just bangs on the drums."

[notoriousd]

"he used to talk nonsense over other people's instruments or play recordings of himself talking nonsense, but now he just bangs on the drums."

[lukaz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keq2GkRoMp8

Diego Chamy: Concernig The New

[Dan Warburton]

To what extent does this qualify as performance art? I found it pretty uninspiringly low-level, in terms of ideas discussed and presentation thereof - the sung interruptions raised a smile, but little more (who was it? Axel getting revenge for Diego's earlier interruptions of his piece?) and I was wondering how the speech continued after they finished, as there's been some editing in the video. Anyway, I'm sure some trendy publisher will print a book of this stuff before long (not that that's even necessary, given Diego's flair for self promotion.. how many Youtube vids are there now?), and he'll be able to enjoy a comfortable middle age as Lecturer of Something Or Other.
Any chance of discussing what this thread is purportedly about? There's more to discuss here than Diego Chamy, I would have thought.

[notoriousd]

I think the sung interruptions were recordings of Diego singing. He used the song to explain why he no longer plays music. The song did not give us any reasons, but showed that he does not have enough musical talent to continue as a musician. Instead he must make up fake questions which nobody asked and then fail to answer them. I feel sorry for anyone who had to sit through the whole thing.

[leroysghost]

Everyone there seemed to be having a good time, not sure why the fuck they would want your pity...

I thought the singing was quite nice actually. They weren't explaining why he doesn't make music, they were showing that he still does. I agree that the groundwork was rather uninspiring, but the framework is one that I've considered myself but never had the courage to implement. So I think what he did there was totally valid as performance art, even if the context didn't do anything for me personally.

I don't see why people are so set against totally dismissing "performance art", it's nothing more then another style of performance. There are plenty of shows that I avoid or even that I attend that I think are shit (the majority, now that I think about it), but I don't feel the need to rail against their physical existence.

[diggedy d]

Really interesting thread. I hope it continues.

[howsthatsound]

i don't really know why this question about the relation of this stuff to previous stuff, and whether or not that makes this stuff bunk keeps coming up. it was pretty obvious from the performances at amplify that this practice of being (for lack of a better term) more physical/relational with regards to unami specifically, is not only not a re-playing of anything, it is not even a nod to those things. it may have wings, but it's not a duck, as they say.
the meaning of practices such as audience member involvement, or (i'm coining a phrase) "natural speech" mean something completely different in this context than in the fluxus context.

what is a far and away (and i mean vast, bro) more interesting conversation, is what these practices may mean now, and how sustainable or not they are (likely not very, which is interesting).
for me, there is such volatility to unami's recent work. he seems to be intentionally placing himself at the edge of what "people can get down with", and yet somehow making it seem natural and sincere, and not like a pose or pedagogical tactic at all. that last bit seems to be where chamy and mattin often fail (though i do highly appreciate some of their work, and certainly appreciate the effort). in this sense, i'm not sure it makes sense to discuss the three as if they are really related by anything other than a basic performance characteristic. they may all have wings, but, you know...

[jon abbey]

well, Unami does play with Mattin a fair amount, and when they do, they generally work in Mattin's area, not in the range that Unami showed in NYC in his six sets here in September. besides that semi-quibble, I agree almost entirely with that post.

[howsthatsound]

yeah, i agree with that. actually, that's one area of unami's work i've never really understood. but then, he could just be having a laugh.

[Herb Levy]

i don't really know why this question about the relation of this stuff to previous stuff, and whether or not that makes this stuff bunk keeps coming up. it was pretty obvious from the performances at amplify that this practice of being (for lack of a better term) more physical/relational with regards to unami specifically, is not only not a re-playing of anything, it is not even a nod to those things. it may have wings, but it's not a duck, as they say.
the meaning of practices such as audience member involvement, or (i'm coining a phrase) "natural speech" mean something completely different in this context than in the fluxus context.

what is a far and away (and i mean vast, bro) more interesting conversation, is what these practices may mean now, and how sustainable or not they are (likely not very, which is interesting).
for me, there is such volatility to unami's recent work. he seems to be intentionally placing himself at the edge of what "people can get down with", and yet somehow making it seem natural and sincere, and not like a pose or pedagogical tactic at all. that last bit seems to be where chamy and mattin often fail (though i do highly appreciate some of their work, and certainly appreciate the effort). in this sense, i'm not sure it makes sense to discuss the three as if they are really related by anything other than a basic performance characteristic. they may all have wings, but, you know...

I haven't seen any of these performances, and I haven't spent much time reading any of the primary source materials by Chamy & Mattin, but I can think of at least one reason these questions might continue to come up.

There's a comparatively long history of performance art and art that functions as institutional critique. The relationship of musical works presented in the context of this body of work is relevant at least to the extent of whether it's bringing something new to this history, or if the work is doing little more than substituting musical terms for visual or theatrical ones.

I think this would be true whether or not the artists involved were fully aware of the prior history.

If an improviser played a musical line that followed, say, the harmonic structure of "All the Things You Are" or some other jazz standard in the midst of a performance at Amplify or any other, similar context, would that be of interest as anything other than as some kind of stunt?

Is the first sonnet or sestina that refers to a current day event, say, Occupy Wall Street, formally interesting in any way, or merely sociologically interesting?

[negative potential]

The relationship of musical works presented in the context of this body of work is relevant at least to the extent of whether it's bringing something new to this history

(snip)

formally interesting in any way, or merely sociologically interesting?

You miss the point entirely. There's a huge incommensurability problem between this work and the people on this forum that criticize it. I don't mean to single out Herb Levy's post in particular but it nicely condenses why all the criticisms leveled at Mattin et al are so widely off the mark.

Basically, you judge this stuff according to standards that it consciously rejects and does not adhere to. You seek to apply the notion of an artistic avant-garde -- i.e. "is this stuff innovative", "is it saying something new", "is it adding anything", etc. etc.

But in fact, it is precisely those terms that this area of work rejects. It rejects the cult of the new and innovation: whatever else you think about their effectiveness, these acts are intended (if not entirely, then to a substantial extent) as interventions of a political nature. Not necessarily activism, but certainly as a form of social critique. A social critique of the whole set of relationships accompanying the very notion of "artist", of "audience", of "art" and "innovation" and the notion of an "avant-garde".

In the lame attempts to discredit it, all I ever see on this forum is: "oh but that has already been done", thus again trying to judge this stuff on the basis of a notion of innovation that it is setting out to question.

But the mere fact that so much effort is spent attacking Mattin and Diego Chamy on this board is a testament that this material is successful in terms of its actual intent: in provoking thought.

There's a fantastic quote by Fredric Jameson that I think nicely sums up the critique of the "avant-garde". The first sentence is the key statement, but the rest of the paragraph is worth quoting as well:

"What has happened is that aesthetic production today has become integrated into commodity production generally: the frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods (from clothing to aeroplanes), at ever greater rates of turnover, now assigns an increasingly essential structural function and position to aesthetic innovation and experimentation. Such economic necessities then find recognition in the varied kinds of institutional support available for the newer art, from foundations and grants to museums and other forms of patronage. Of all the arts, architecture is the closest constitutively to the economic, with which, in the form of commissions and land values, it has a virtually unmediated relationship. It will therefore not be surprising to find the extraordinary flowering of the new postmodern architecture grounded in the patronage of multinational business, whose expansion and development is strictly contemporaneous with it. Later I will suggest that these two new phenomena have an even deeper dialectical interrelationship than the simple one-to-one financing of this or that individual project. Yet this is the point at which I must remind the reader of the obvious; namely, that this whole global, yet American, postmodern culture is the internal and superstructural expression of a whole new wave of American military and economic domination throughout the world: in this sense, as throughout class history, the underside of culture is blood, torture, death, and terror."

[jon abbey]

There's a huge incommensurability problem between this work and the people on this forum that criticize it. I don't mean to single out Herb Levy's post in particular but it nicely condenses why all the criticisms leveled at Mattin et al are so widely off the mark.

it doesn't actually, I don't think Herb's perspective is especially representative of the forum, I think the post a few above by howsthatsound is much more representative.

Basically, you judge this stuff according to standards that it consciously rejects and does not adhere to. You seek to apply the notion of an artistic avant-garde -- i.e. "is this stuff innovative", "is it saying something new", "is it adding anything", etc. etc.

But in fact, it is precisely those terms that this area of work rejects.

yes, we know that, we've been told two trillion times. I disagree that this work is generally judged by these criteria, I think it's generally judged in precisely the way you're saying it's not, by the amount and quality of thought it provokes.

In the lame attempts to discredit it, all I ever see on this forum is: "oh but that has already been done"

then this just speaks to your own lack of reading comprehension, I refer you to the series of posts by Michael Pisaro and Joe Panzner (undo) in the latest Mattin-started thread, in which they tackle the text he's written on its own terms, and expose it for the third-rate effort that it is. that's just the latest example.

But the mere fact that so much effort is spent attacking Mattin and Diego Chamy on this board is a testament that this material is successful in terms of its actual intent: in provoking thought.

I think it's more of a testament to those two starting a lot of threads here.

[negative potential]

yes, we know that, we've been told two trillion times. I disagree that this work is generally judged by these criteria, I think it's generally judged in precisely the way you're saying it's not, by the amount and quality of thought it provokes.

What a strange judgement. So if the thought it provokes is not of a high quality, that's not the fault of the thinker?

Joe Panzner (undo) in the latest Mattin-started thread, in which they tackle the text he's written on its own terms, and expose it for the third-rate effort that it is.

Actually, Joe didn't do that at all. Joe's statement can basically be reduced to "you guys are only quoting certain European philosophers to seem trendy. Oh, and by the way, I contest that you haven't really understood those thinkers."

And Jon, be honest: how much of a position are you in to really judge whether Joe's assessment is correct as to whether those guys have really understood what they've read? They actually quote a (finally soon to be published) manuscript I translated in that piece, but I still haven't heard of most of the other thinkers they refer to, so I'm really in no position to say how accurate they are. I think it's really mob mentality niveau to cheer on Joe even though I'm willing to bet most of the people posting here aren't in a position to assess whether Joe's main assertion (Mattin and/or collaborators haven't understood or haven't read the thinkers they refer to) is actually correct or not.

Oh and for the record, no I'm not in GegenSich.

[jon abbey]

I have spent a lot of time over the years talking to Pisaro and Panzner and Mattin about various matters. you're right that I have absolutely no idea about (or interest in, really) the specifics, but I do know the people involved pretty well and feel pretty comfortable taking sides here if I'm forced to.

[jon abbey]

I think the main reason Mattin/Chamy provoke so much of a response (besides that being their primary goal) is that both seem to have a fundamental disinterest/disdain for music at this point in their lives. I am barely familiar with Chamy's work, I've never seen him live, and I always turn off those clips pretty quickly, but with Mattin, there is an insulting undertone in his work towards any and all attempts at music, and that's I think what sets many people off, including myself. as always, it's much much much easier to criticize than to create something yourself, and I think this is the role Mattin has put himself in in recent years. it's the easiest thing in the world to say "everything sucks", it's much harder to create something that doesn't.