Let me start of by saying that I have a real problem with performance art. I just don't think I have it in me to classify it as actual art. But I will refer to the performers as artists for the sake of blog clarity. Most of the time I feel like performance artists are just doing crazy things for the purpose of being crazy. They are just acting out like angry teenagers. They are simply trying to disgust, bewilder, anger, and/or sadden the audience for no other reason than to just do it. And yes I know that art should invoke an emotion from the audience, but these performance artists are going about it in immature, unsafe, and unnecessary ways. All in all, I feel like performance artists are only being pretentious.
Pretentious is how I sum up performance art in one word. Its not satirical, its not entertaining, its not mind-opening. It is merely extreme on the behalf of extremeness. Sometimes they try to be satirical, but they are too extreme for the audience to comprehend the satire, making the satire pointless and nonexistent. The artists know full well it will be hard or impossible for the audience to understand their meaning, but they continue to be extreme and confusing anyway, and that-THAT is why performance art is pretentious.
Basically what it comes down to is that I believe performance art is not art for the same reason snuff films are not art. Horrible for the sake of horribleness is not art. Bad for the sake of bad can be acceptable if done in a comedic fashion (like cheesy B-movies), however, performance artists usually don't do comedy. This is mainly because they think they are doing something substantial, another hint of their pretentiousness. But without meaning or purpose, I don't believe it is substantial and therefore not art.
Granted I know there are people out there that do consider performance art as art. And I can kinda see why. However, if performance art can be considered art, then where does it stop? Why aren't SpongeBob SquarePants cartoons discussed by art critics? Why do people give Michael Bay a hard time for making movies with just action and no substance? Why aren't comic books displayed in the Louvre? Its just that I think that it is unfair and almost hypocritical to consider performance art art and not something like saturday morning cartoons or comic books or crappy films.
But its not all bad. I did enjoy Stelarc's pieces, mainly because of the sci-fi element. I also like his work because I can see satire and entertainment in his efforts. He could be satirizing how technology is consuming our everyday lives or asking where does science end and life begin? Also his pieces are functional and very intricate. His work looks very realistic, like people will one day be able to walk with robotic spider legs. It makes him seem more like an inventor than an artist. And thats what an inventor is-- and artist. And while performance artists are trying to invent new art, I feel like they are mostly jut failed inventions. And no one really cares about failed inventions because they don't work. And since they don't work, they're not art.
And now I shall get off my soap box.
No comments:
Post a Comment