‘Body Issues in Performance Art' and ‘Cyberrace’
What issues in performance art does Andrea Pagnes outline in his article ‘Body Issues in Performance Art: Between Theory and Praxis’?
In a performance, bodies are the source of emotions and feelings that act and modify communication, expression, at the same time express the rejection of ordinary and conventional things that surround us.
That's why when the action artist uses his body as a tool for expression he shouldn't consider himself as a biological being. The body should be used ‘for its metaphorical value, nullification, truth, having always clear his mind that when the body lies, it always confesses.’ According to Andrea Pagnes, there are many things that could be discovered with the help of the body, such as emotions, feelings, movements and sensations.
The sensitive imagery and body language help the performer and the spectator to experience an aesthetic control and a manipulation of space in a more effective way. Within this space, the action takes place. The audience interacts with the performance and is free to move, there is no fixed or predetermined pattern.
Body is an instrument of creative freedom through which the artist should look for his primitive soul qualities in order to be connected and to search for mutual sharing.
A part of the creative act is an understanding technology but it must be strictly considered as a tool which is used to fix the performance into diverse metaphors.
Identify a piece of performance art that exemplifies one of these issues.
In 2010 at MoMA, Marina Abramović engaged in an extended performance called The Artist Is Present. The work was inspired by her belief that stretching the length of a performance beyond expectations serves to alter our perception of time and foster a deeper engagement in the experience. Seated silently at a wooden table across from an empty chair, she waited as people took turns sitting in the chair and locking eyes with her. Over the course of nearly three months, for eight hours a day, she met the gaze of 1,000 strangers, many of whom were moved to tears.
Since the early 1970s, Abramović has been pushing past perceived limits of the body and mind, and exploring the complex relationship between artist and audience, through performances that challenge both herself and, in many instances, participants emotionally, intellectually, and physically.
How are issues of commodity, ideology and fetishism connected to the concept of Cyberrace in Lisa Nakamura’s article ‘Cyberrace’?
The connection between cyberrace and fetishism is presented through the possibility to hide your identity and ‘the ability to manipulate the «look and feel» of race by online role-playing, digital gaming and other forms of digital media.’ This creates the desire to have control on self-construction and self-representation.
It’s mentioned in the article that with the rise of the internet, public discussion about race and technology was brought into advertisement, films and novels. ‘Internet itself produced a rich stream of content that depicted racialized bodies in exotic locales juxtaposed with digital technologies.’
Nakamura contrasts the ability to hide user’s bodies and races online with “racialization,” making race through digital means. What is the contrast? In other words, what is the difference between hiding oneself online (Web 1.0) and showing one's identity online (Web 2.0)?
Websites of Web 1.0 technology were simple, typically monochromatic, and mostly used for scientific publications. Fairly static information was updated infrequently. If there were any pictures at all, they were all on the left-hand side of the screen. The transition to Web 2.0 is based on “interactive” use of the web. Web 2.0 gave people the possibility to carry on interactions with others, collaborate on the same document at fairly much the same time. People could post thoughts, creative expressions, and also the places for leaving comments were created. Mainly Web 2.0 is all about rich internet experience while web 1.0 is limited to information sharing.
According to the article hiding oneself online in Web 1.0 is creating an alternative identity with minimal personal information disclosed. At that time it was ‘voluntary' to create a virtual identity, which controlled all the aspects, especially race. However, Web 2.0 brought a different value to the presentation of race and identity in cyberspace. Web 2.0 puts its users into position of content creators, surreptitiously compelling to divulge more personal information by giving them no choice but to create profiles, avatars, pictures, comments, blog entries and so on.
How does Nakamura interpret “racialization” as a “performance?”
