In order to circumvent these traditional art-making tools (painting, sculpture, drawing, lithography, etc.), these artists sough to created a “new” art-making toolset. The new toolset created work that – for the most part – could not be sold, was body-based, and overtly concerned with representations of the “self.”

In rejecting the commerce systems of traditional art, these artists also developed a new relationship with their audience: and created a performer-spectator relationship that is not predetermined by a commercial exchange preceding the “show.” (The idea that, “I pay for my ticket, then the artists perform for me,” is inextricably tied to notions of ownership and, of course, commerce.)

So by its very design, performance art works outside of the boundaries of mainstream representation. That’s why people often end of walking away from a performance art piece saying, “huh?” It’s not that the performance art is trying to confuse us, it’s that its starting point rejects the very modes of representation we are most used to dealing with.

Themes of the self, representations of women, body-based work, “real-time” endurance, humour, raw civic engagement . . . All appear with some regularity in the performance art I’ve seen.

Anyway, that’s my armchair understanding of performance art.

What do you think?

In Adam Rapp’s Nocturne (which I saw at The American Repertory Theatre, but has been produced all over) there is a character called Naked Girl, I don’t believe she has any lines. She is, however, integral to the story serving as a conduit to understanding the central protagonist’s history and loves. Both shows essentially use the same device, one serves the plot, one takes away. As a director, you have to just see it on stage and figure out if it is helping or hurting…

But yes, hurting or helping the story, because this is theatre and not performance art. Why the emphasis on story? Because stories are what we (human beings) use to understand and contextualize our experience as living sentient beings. Don’t believe me? Try telling a story to your cat…Your cat on the other hand would quite enjoy much performance art.

This is awesome. I hope I start an internet riot with comments like that…..

I should have listened to my mother and taken up dance.

The profundity of that question is quite staggering to me. Why indeed? And what defines “story”; beginning, middle, and end, in any particular order? If you leave it open-ended, does it cease to be defined as a story? Perhaps to be a story a work must contain a journey of some kind? A shift in consciousness? An affected change? I honestly don’t know right now, but talk about food for thought. It ties in somehow to a conversation I’ve been recently having about theatre v. performance art, and where the distinctions lie.

Shortbus is a great example of this. After watching that film I now think that movies that are about sex where they cheat it with cheap camera tricks are pretty dishonest. And it scares me to death to think of how this might apply to theatre.

First off, well said. And Shortbus is an excellent example of images of explicit sex being used in the service of a great story.

I guess I’m just worried about making sharp distinctions between pornography and other forms of narration.

Of all the narrative forms currently in popular usage, surely none has such shame attached to it as pornography. So while its production and consumption is widespread, the shame associated with it, both for the performer and spectator, severely limits its ability to influence and (presumably) be influenced by other narrative forms. So we end up with a narrative form that’s become severely in-bred. It knows only how to tell its story of mindless titillation in the same way, again and again.

And it seems odd to me that an entire method of representation (explicit sex) is relegated almost entirely to this thin band of production. Imagine the stories we could tell if there weren’t such severe taboos attached to dipictions of explict sex. And how liberated porn artists might be if they were taken to be serious artists.

Bruce LaBruce has explored a lot of these questions in his film work. But how fringe is Bruce LaBruce?

Here are another couple of questions for you. Why so much emphasis on story? And how do we know a good story from a bad story?

OK. I’m on the verge of rambling now.

Thoughts?