In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
PAJ: A Journal of Performance and Art 21.3 (1999) 98-104
Book Review
Goldberg Variations
Books & Company
Performance: Live Art Since 1960. RoseLee Goldberg.
Foreword by Laurie Anderson. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.,
1998.
In the early eighties, I and a group of friends -- musicians,
dancers, performance artists, theatre artists -- got together to
try to define "performance art" in contradistinction to the other
arts, in particular theatre. This discussion went on for hours, got
more and more frustrating, and came to no conclusion. We all sort
of "knew" what made performance art what it was and not something
else; but when it came to defining it in terms of its elements, it
was clear that the wide purview of various traditions that
constitute theatre, especially in its twentieth-century avant-garde
forms, made it impossible to definitively distinguish performance
art from theatre as a "live art." Most attempts can only do so by
reducing all theatre to fourth-wall naturalism, which, for all its
cultural impact, is a small moment in the long history and varied
cultural locations of theatre. (The only exception I could think of
would be the literal and experiential character of endurance and
body art, but even they become theatricalized in their mode of
presentation. Think of the Grand Guignol of Ron Athey.) In the long
run, however, genre distinctions are always more of a concern for
critics, theorists, and historians than they are for artists.
Nonetheless, our instincts told us that performance art did seem
like something new and different, and its difference largely
consisted of disrupting the very categories we were trying to
distinguish over against it, instead of distinguishing itself as a
new category complete in itself. "Performance" as a larger concept
to be argued about only emerged once "performance art" became
recognized as a provocative and genre-destabilizing force. Its
role, as Josette Féral once put it, was to make each specific art
form aware of, and draw attention to, the modes of its own
production (which to my mind also overlaps significantly with
conceptual art). But as Féral had also remarked in a later essay,
performance lost this interrogative power when it began to be seen
as a genre in itself.
What we see in RoseLee Goldberg's big new coffee-table book
Performance: Live Art Since 1960 seems to reflect this
trajectory described by Féral. Insofar as she constructs the book
thematically, Goldberg includes a variety of disciplines --
including dance, theatre, video, and visual art -- whose limits are
probed by this self-conscious thing called "performance." While
Goldberg wants to claim that performance art is really operating in
resistance to commodity culture, especially as it was articulated
in the seventies, it's clear as we follow the chronology of the
documentation that such an ideal was assuredly abandoned by the
eighties, and performance as a highly polished commodity is clearly
prominent in the nineties (and this book is an example). This shift
in attitude can be read in the almost historical shift from
black-and-white photos to color. There is a sense of mere utility
in black-and-white, which points to the idea that documentation is
really only a supplement to a performance having to do with
context, space, action, ideas, of which the photograph is primarily
a reminder. Moving into color photography, especially as gorgeously
displayed in a book like this one, it's clear that the photograph
becomes less a record of a conceptually interesting event than a
visual work to be appreciated for itself. For example, the cover
photograph, from Lou Reed and Robert Wilson's Time Rocker,
is an onstage performance view no audience member could possibly
have; however good or bad the performance itself may have been, for
the person who never saw it, the photograph takes on a different
life to stimulate other unrelated fantasies.
"Live Art" is indeed a category that is accepted at face value,
and I wonder what Philip Auslander's response to this would be,
given his critique of the concept in his new book Liveness,
and given Goldberg's self-admitted irony of creating a book of
photographs to capture the spirit...