Coinciding
with the annual meeting of the College Art Association in Los Angeles,
The Arts Research Center at UC Berkeley is hosting the offsite working
session "Making Time at Human Resources" on February 22, 2012. Participants have been invited to post some brief thoughts on the topic in advance of the event. This guest posting is by Cal-State Long Beach professor and art historian, Nizan Shaked.
Out of the six
exhibitions my students curated since I began heading the Museum and Curatorial
Studies program at Cal State Long Beach, two have taken the issue of exhibiting
performance as their primary concern. In 2008 Un-figuring the Body (lead by Megan Hoetger) investigated the
posthumous representation of performance-related objects in the gallery space,
tackling the problem of how to represent the (intensely) physical work of
performance after the event took place, and the theoretical implication of how
the human body becomes “figured” in representation. Currently on view, Split Moment (lead by Mary Coyne) examines
the relation of time-based work with two-dimensional forms of representation,
by thinking about the latter as a form of “writing” in the Derridian sense.
These professional
exhibitions were curated by the students for our accredited University Art
Museum (UAM), and in both cases they were met with varying degrees of antagonism
to the display and/or the programming. The first exhibition provoked the
resistance of the institution itself, which questioned the “museum quality”
status of Johanna Went’s performance costumes, and the merit of Dawn Kasper’s series
of performances. (Went’s contribution is now acknowledged in various Pacific
Standard Time exhibitions, and Kasper is gearing up to be part of the 2012
Whitney Biennial.) With Split Moment the
criticism came from the museum’s “general public.” While both graduate and
undergraduate students responded enthusiastically to a recital by dancer/choreographer
Flora Weigmann, members of the community complained that it had not been
sufficiently contextualized in for them to understand what they were seeing.
It seems that my
students and I have made several assumptions when curating the programing. Since
Flora’s piece Wondering was on
display, we expected that the audience will organically enjoy the live event and
extrapolate its meaning from the discussion of her video piece addressed in the
exhibition brochure. Both the video and the live event were a tribute to
modernist choreographer Mary Wigman.
It was only after watching the event that I could articulate how the
movements themselves held a tension between a modernist aesthetic and a
postmodern distance captivating me in my inability to distinguish between the
two.
However, even
now I feel insecure in my ability to discuss the meaning or significance of
this dance. I am wanting for criteria and do not even have the means to assess
whether my observations are insightful or obvious. False confidence is not an
option here. In fact, I think it’s the first problem to be weeded if we are to
formulate a concrete and meaningful critical tool. I therefore see the question
of criteria as central and think it should be approached comparatively.
But here we face
another problem. On the one hand, most critics/historians I read (indeed, with
bias) evaluate performance in relation to the canon of art-discourse that is
deeply connected to formalism, either directly, or because their argument has
been formulated through the art-historical dialogue with this powerful position.
Even the varying schools of politically engaged criticism are ultimately
debating formalism, whether they admit it or not, and the strong influence of
this methodology continues to shun inter-disciplinary discussion. On the other
hand, the dialogue with formalism is the last straw connecting us to a
meaningful history—the last frontier against the onslaught of spectacular
populism that has seized the imagination of museum personnel, funding agencies,
and of course private philanthropy, consequently lowering the bar in our
institutions of display to an unacceptable common denominator.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment