Participation Project and Documentation

I have recently been thinking a great deal about the documentation of performance work. Firstly, I would like to clarify that when I talk about performance work I am referring specifically to work that was intended to be seen live (not, for example, a performance that was intended to be viewed through the medium of film).

After our first day working on the participation project with FrenchMottershead, I had a number of questions that were niggling me regarding documentation and the nature of the work that we had undertaken. Firstly, I questioned whether the act of approaching members of the public, asking them to write something on a piece of paper and taking a photograph of them was at all a performance. I can see that there are performative elements within this act…but how much of that constitutes a live performance, if at all?

If Corrine was not present when I approached members of the public and conversed with them, and vice versa, then would the lack of an immediate spectator have meant that the event was less performative?

When asked “What is your project about?” Corrine answered, “The conversation and interaction that we are having right now”. If that is the case then surely, as the conversation was in real time and live, the project does indeed constitute a performative event, even if it does not constitute a contrived performance. Although, if we do view the work as a performative event I do have to stop and question whether every conversation we have is also a performative event; or is it the inclusion of a speech act that makes the event more performative?...anyway, before I digress:

If we are now looking at the work as a performative event (which is in itself quite obviously debatable), I am left with the burning question of “how does the picture that we took as part of the work fit into all of this?”

The problem that I seem to be having with the documentation of live work is that

This is not a performance

In the same way that this is not a pen

This is the only way that I can think of expressing what I am trying to say. However, the picture that we took as part of the project;

doesn’t pretend to be a representation of the live events that occurred. It is an art work in its own right, it can stand on its own, yet it was formed as a product of a live performative event. This fact enables the photograph to stand on its own whilst simultaneously being a trace of an event that occurred without claiming to represent that event in anyway shape or form. I feel that this is therefore, a form of documentation that holds much more integrity than simply filming or photographing a live performance for archiving purposes.

I also have to add that whilst I have been writing this and looking for images I have come across some great photographs of Live Art that are thoughtful and beautifully produced (check out Manuel Vason's work)...so maybe it is just thoughtless and badly documented work that I have a problem with!?!

Please let me know what you think or any counter arguments!!