I am currently examining the effects of ‘mediatization’ (Auslander 1999: 4, 5) on performance art, some areas of live art, and to a certain extent, theatre. I note that there are various distinction between the three art forms and that the definition of each will vary from artist to artist and from theorist to theorist. However, for the purpose of this proposal I am not going to define or discuss the distinctions of each, as it is the ontology that these art forms have in common that I am interested in, as opposed to the distinctions between them.
One of the fundamental tenets that each of these art forms have in common is that they are immediate, and take place in the present, in real time, and in real space. They are all based on a notion of liveness. I have, however, recently begun to reconsider this notion. I do not want to be as negative as to state that mediatization has threatened, and is destroying, the ontological nature of these art forms, but in my opinion it has certainly called it into question. The opposition of media and live performance, as Philip Auslander addresses in his book Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, is no longer a distinct one.
Peggy Phelan actually defines performance as beginning and ending with its live and ephemeral nature:
“Performance cannot be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise participate in the circulation of representations of representations: once it does so, it becomes something other than performance. To the degree that performance attempts to enter the economy of reproduction, it lessens the promise of its own ontology.” (Phelan 1993 cited in Auslander 1999: 39)
Although I am partly inclined to agree with Phelan, and have often taken the above attitude towards performance, I do not think that I could commit to such a problematic, purist, statement without a great deal of consideration.
Barbra Clausen notes in the introduction to her book After the Act that:
“Contrary to its original nature, performance art, has through the historization of its documentary material become an object and image based art form.” (Clausen 2007: 7)
This is because, “most performance artists were aware of the necessity of preserving their actions beyond the moment of their performative manifestation. This desire was based on the one hand on the need to influence the art-historical-reception of the artists own work, and on the other hand on the social and economic objective of bringing the work to a boarder audience.” (ibid.: 9)
An ‘object and imaged based art form’ is not an ontologically pure one when viewed in relation to Phelan’s definition of performance. An object and image based art form is one which will very easily ‘enter into the economy of reproduction’ and would not be in existence in the same capacity without mediatization. Does this, as Phelan states, ‘lessen its ontological promise’, or does it help make performance more influential? Clausen argues towards mediatization helping performance’s status by observing that, a great deal of performance events during to 1960s were performed to only small, selective, groups of people, yet the significance of these events has been far reaching. She also notes that performance art is a conceptual practice and that “its constitution is not completed with the event itself (but), is a processual form of art that is dependent on its reception.” (Clausen 2007: 19). The result of this is that through ‘medial transcription’ performance art is subject to a great many shifts caused by its reception through different mediums. As we can see the distinction of the live and mediatized in performance itself is not so clear and, for me, raises several questions, such as: Does the performance’s use of mediatization stop it been performance at all? If I look up a performance on the Internet, or at the Live Art Development Agency’s archive and evaluate it, am I in fact interpreting a performance or an ideal of a performance that has been left in the presence of the performance’s absence?
Perhaps there is some weight in the argument that performance’s inclusion of mediatization prevents it from been performance. Philip Auslander argues that live performance has now developed to replicate the discourse of mediatization and states that:
“Live performance now often incorporates mediatization such that the live event itself is a product of media technologies”. (1999: 24)
Auslander uses the example of sound amplification during a live performance to support his argument stating that, “what we actually hear is the vibration of a speaker, a reproduction by technological means…not the original acoustic event.” (ibid.: 24). The inclusion of Television screens and video monitors into all kinds of live events calls into question the degree of liveness that is present. Does the delay in a live broadcast or video link make it less live? If the event has passed and we are therefore, not seeing or hearing the original event does the amount of ‘liveness’ present differ?
Caroline Smith’s performance Spank draws attention to the above question when she prerecords a news broadcast with herself as the newsreader. This prerecording is then played during her live performance. During the performance Smith interacts and speaks with her previously recorded self. We know that in ‘reality’ the news is broadcast live, and as Smith is ‘live’ on stage, the broadcast cannot also be live. The moment that the two interact with each other the binary opposition of live and mediatized is called neatly into question.
Filter’s Performance Water, which was performed at the Lyric, Hammersmith (2007), is also a fascinating example of juxtaposing the live with technological reproduction. At several points during the performance the actors create different sound effects live on stage using simple methods, that have nothing to do with the sound effect that they are trying to create, and play them through a sound system. The result is that the sound that we, the audience, hear resembles something completely different from the one we are watching the actor make. For example, one of the actors held a microphone to his mouth and flicked his cheek. Once the sound came back out through the amplifier (with the addition of a reverberation on it) it resembled the sound of dripping water. Here the ‘live’ action on stage is the catalyst for a very different reproduction right before our very ears!
I am inclined to think that, at least to some extent, the ubiquitous mediatization in our culture has not gone unnoticed. There was an exhibition called Live Culture at Tate Modern 27th – 30th March 2003. Under the ‘projects’ section of the Live Art Development Agency’s website it notes the necessity of the exhibition in light of the fact that there has been;
“A resurgence of interest in experimental and performative practices within the visual arts and the status of “liveness” as a prime object and value in the media-dense environment of contemporary culture, make Live Culture a timely and critical intervention into current discourses.” (http://www.thisisliveart.co.uk/projects/live_culture/index.html accessed 02/01/2008 at 14:03)
There may be people noticing that we are in a media-dense culture and possibly in danger of loosing the live, however, I had to draw a question mark over the Tate Modern’s intentions towards “liveness” when they note at the bottom of the page that “Documentation of the live actions and performances can be found at the Tate Modern micro site for Live Culture.”
In conclusion, although I do not yet have a specific question that I wish to address, I know that I want to continue to examine live performance in relation to mediatization. Whether this is through questioning and evaluating the documentation of live events or questioning what “liveness” actually means, I know that I will be looking at the incursion of mediatization, both into ontologically live art forms, and into our culture.
AUSLANDER, P. (1999) Liveness: Performance in a Mediatized Culture, Abingdon, Routledge
AUSLANDER, P. (2007) ‘On the Performativity of Performance Documentation’. In: CLAUSEN, B. (2007) volume 03 After the Act, Verlag Moderne Kunst, 21-34
BROOK, P. (1968, 1990) ‘The Deadly Theatre’. In: HUXLEY, M. and WITTS, N. ed. (1996) The Twentieth Century Performance Reader, London, Rountledge, 105-110
CARLSON, M (1996) ‘What is Performance’. In: HUXLEY, M. and WITTS, N. ed. (1996) The Twentieth Century Performance Reader, London, Rountledge, 146-153
CLAUSEN, B. (2007) volume 03 After the Act, Verlag Moderne Kunst, 7-20
FIORE, Q and MCLUHAN, M (1967) The Medium is the Message, London, The Penguin Press
GOLDBERG, R. (2001) second edition Performance Art From Futurism to the Present, London, Thames and Hudson.
KYONG CHUN, W, H. and KEENAN, T. ed. (2006) New Media, Old Media: A History and Theory reader, Abingdon
Websites
LIVE ART DEVELOPMENT AGENCY http://www.thisisliveart.co.uk/about_us/index.html (accessed 02/01/2008 at 14:03)
Provides definitions of Live Art, information on current practitioners and information on Live Art projects both past and present.
PIL AND GALIA KOLLECTIV (2005) RETRO/NECRO:
From Beyond the Grave of the Politics of Re-Enactment Available from: http://www.artpapers.org/feature_articles/article1.htm (accessed 02/01/2008 at 13:03)
Consider the impact of reenacting past performances. This is especially interesting when considered in relation to Phelan’s notion that performance has the ability to sidestep the economy of reproduction when not documented.
I have notes upon notes upon notes! For those of you who know me I'm sure you are not surprised! Haha!
