Is the audience as a bodily participant crucial to certain art works?
Throughout this module, I have been particularly interested in how the body is used in order to convey certain issues and questions. However, it is not only the artist’s participation and relationship with their piece that is crucial, but it is also the participation and relationship of the audience. The artwork and the viewer are always inextricably linked; even looking at an artwork, creates a relationship between the two – the artwork itself and the viewer. This relationship between artist and audience can be developed in a number of ways. The audience can be a viewer of a particular piece, a painting or a sculpture, or, a watcher or active participant in a performance-based piece. This leads one to question whether, without the audience or the viewer, is there any point to art?
The relationship between artist/artwork, and viewer/participant is potentially essential to any artwork, whether it is meant to have an aesthetically pleasing effect, or to shock. It is particularly essential to some of my own work, as I have been focusing on the relationship between people and nature, in which I created a sound piece for participants to listen to, so they can begin to question this relationship for themselves. My artworks have enabled people to become active participants in my practice, as I hosted an intervention in order for people to have their own reaction to my work. Throughout this case study I will look at the works of Valie Export, Yoko Ono, Marina Abramavic and Vito Acconci, to explore to what extent audience participation is crucial to a piece. And as a result, do works such as these have more of an impact on an audience than a painting of a sculpture?
In 1938, French poet/actor/theatre director, Antonio Artaud suggested that in theatre performance “a direct communication will be re-established between the spectator and the spectacle, between the actor and the spectator”[1]. By using the word “communication” Artaud suggests that the relationship between the audience and the actors is something that is no longer purely visual for the viewer, implying a direct relationship between the two. This means there is perhaps no binary “artwork” and “viewer”;that any piece of artwork involves the audiences and creates a “communication” and therefore a connection between the two. I believe this connection is particularly prominent in performance art, where it can be difficult to form no emotional attachment to the piece – even if it is a negative attachment, the piece has created some form of emotional response from the viewer. It is therefore difficult to experience a piece of performance art from a distant perspective, and therefore difficult to be fully removed from a piece without being part of it.
In Postmodernism, Subjectivity and Body Art, Amelia Jones states that “the body art or performance event is only “real” once, or that it remains itself only through the memories of the people who were present during its live performance”[2] (Jones, 1998). This suggests that audience participation is absolutely essential to the performance event. Without the audience, there is no such memory of the piece and the piece essentially becomes pointless. In this, we can begin to question the essentiality of the audience, as without the audience in performance art, the piece will always be distorted and viewed differently than the exact moment at which it was performed. Jones continues “the body art event needs the photograph to confirm its having happened” (Jones, 1998), however, this will ultimately lose the effect that it had on the piece’s initial recipient. Yes, a photograph or film will show that the performance piece has taken place, but it will never be the same to view as the participants who saw it live. On the contrary, Jones states that “having direct physical contact with an artist who pulls a scroll from her vaginal canal does not ensure “knowledge” (as individual and/ or artist and/ or work of art) any more than does looking at a film or picture of this activity” (Jones, 1998). Here, Jones does not argue whether audience participation is necessary for the art work, but suggests that how it is received afterwards, has no less of an effect on the audience. Therefore, whether the audience was a participant or not, it is the aftermath of the piece that will live on.
An effective example of this is Valie Export’s Action Pants: Genital Panic, 1968 in which she wears crotch-less trousers to expose her genitals. Even the title of the piece suggests a reaction from the audience as it is labelled as “panic”. Export comments “it was important for me to present my works to the public, in the public space […] I wanted to provoke, because I sought to change the people’s way of seeing and thinking”[3]. To Export the public audience was critical to her piece for a raw outcome, and the outcome is to do with a “seeing” and a “thinking” from the audience. It could be argued that this piece, displayed in the Tate Gallery as “a set of six identical posters from a larger group that the artist produced to commemorate an action she performed in Munich in 1968”[4], does not have anywhere near the same effect on the viewer, that it did on the public audience in 1968. In fact, it seems to marginalise the sole provocative point of the piece, and seeing it happen in the time and place would have had a much more severe effect on the audience. In 1968, Export gives the public audience no choice but to look at her genitals, live, up-close and personal. This gives Export’s work an aggressive-like approach as she makes her public audience a participant without being given a choice in the matter. I believe that a series of photographs in the Tate completely deteriorates from the personal impact this piece had in the live flesh in the 1960s. This gives more of a leniency to the viewer as they do not have to participate in the looking of the piece, therefore, subverting the initial reaction that Valie Export wanted – not giving the audience a choice in the matter.
This idea of live performance pieces being personal and upfront, is particularly prominent in Yoko Ono’s Cut Piece, 1964. Yoko Ono sat quiet with a pair of scissors in front of her, inviting the audience to approach her and cut pieces of her clothing. As the performance piece progressed, Ono’s clothes were completely cut to shreds, and she remained quiet and still throughout. People even cut her bra strap leading her to hold up her bra to avoid exposing her breast. This piece challenges the relationship between viewer and participant. The audience are invited to participate, but at the same time, will be involved in something that is potentially demoralising and emotional for the performer. An article on Phaidon suggests this piece “emphasises the reciprocal way in which viewers and subjects become objects” and that Cut Piece “demonstrates how viewing without responsibility has the potential to harm or even destroy the object of perception”[5]. In this performance piece, the audience participation is critical. The piece is important for everyone involved, and therefore, could be argued that the piece only fully exists at this point in time. A description of video or the piece would not have the same effect on the viewer as it would have on the people who participated in the live performance. Does the piece then not exist outside of this intimate experience between subject and audience? The emotionality and suspense, I believe, can never be reciprocated in the same way.
This is reiterated by the fact that Yoko Ono went on to recreate the piece in 2003 with the same intentions as before. However, it is impossible to replicate this piece. It will never be as intense as the original relationship between Ono and the participants. For example, in the 1964, there would have been a tension between the subject and the audience as people would have been wary of the outcome. The replica piece in 2003, would have had a different emotional effect and could perhaps be seen as a mockery of the piece as this initial tension is now eliminated. Participants are much more aware of the situation and the outcome of the piece then they would have been in 1964. This means the audience as a bodily participant is crucial to a piece, not only for the piece to be more hard hitting and emotional, but also for the performance piece to remain a performance piece rather than a photo or a description of the event.
Mariana Abramavic’s, Rhythm 0, 1974, similarly tests the boundaries between subject and audience. The instructions given were: “There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired” and continues “I am the object. During this period I take full responsibility”. Abramavic sets up a situation in which she is completely vulnerable, with a high risk factor as she presents objects of pleasure and harm on the table. The audience are invited to use the objects on her “as desired”, creating a tension between the extremity of the lengths the audience would go to, and the endurance of “the subject”. The Tate Gallery displays Mariana Abramavic’s, Rhythm 0, 1974, as a replica of the table of seventy-two objects and video snippets of the 1974 performance piece. Although it may be particularly hard-hitting to look at the objects that could have potentially, and did in fact, cause harm to the subject, the tension between the participant and the viewer is absent. When viewing these objects, the relationship from the onlookers of the piece, and Abramavic is absent because the original piece can never be replicated in the same way. Similarly, to Yoko Ono’s ‘Cut piece’, even if Abramavic were to try the same experiment again, the relationship would be different as people would already expect a certain outcome. Moreover, the emotional and vulnerable elements that were evident in the subject are also removed when viewing this piece in the Tate, as the whole piece is based upon the original relationship between Abramavic and the participants who were there at the time.
It is difficult to discuss the relationship between audience and artist without considering Marina Abramovic’s The Artist is present, 2010. This piece consisted of Abramovic performing in the museum every day between 14th March – 31st of May, 2010. The idea was that visitors sat silently facing the artist for a duration of their choosing, therefore becoming part of the artwork itself. Each interaction with a participant is recorded as they write their responses. It is a particularly emotional piece, where participants felt as if (through looking at the artist) they actually participated in a deep connection with the artist.
“I have made a career as a performance artist for 40 years now and my relationship to the public is changing. It used to be very simple: the public was sitting in the audience and I was performing in front of them. Then, with my performance ‘The Artist is Present’, I created a one-to-one experience where the public was watching and only one person was actually experiencing. In ‘512 Hours’, which I did at the Serpentine Galleries in London, the public were actually the ones performing and I just blended in.
In Sydney, for ‘Marina Abramović: In Residence’, I will be like a conductor in the exhibition space, but it will be the public who will take the physical and emotional journey. We constantly like to be entertained, to get things from outside. We never take time to get in touch with ourselves… our inner self. My function in this new kind of performance situation is to show you, through the Abramovic Method, what you can do for yourself. I wanted to make this big change because I understood that actually you can’t get any experience by me doing it for you… So I’m completely shifting the paradigm, changing the rules.”
– Marina Abramović
Yes, as Marina Abramovic states she is “completely shifting he paradigm, changing the rules”, enabling the audience to completely take control of their own reaction to her work. Here, the relationship between Abramovic and the audience is paramount, particularly because the reaction of the paticiapnts is the outcome of her work.
Contrastingly, Vito Acconci’s Seedbed, 1972, explores something that is so intensely dependent on a relationship, that it could be seen almost to completely detach the audience. Acconci lay under a wooden structure for eight hours masturbating. This piece completely defies the boundaries of audience and performance, as involuntary viewers are invited into his piece without even knowing, as he is hidden under the wooden ramp. The other works I have explored are more about a mutual, physical relationship between the audience and participant. Unlike the other pieces, this piece is extremely one-sided, invasive, perverse, taking advantage of a perhaps, unwilling audience. Acconci explores the dynamics of intimacy and trust, and similarly the other pieces have also focused on an intimacy between the audience and the artist, through seeing and touch. This piece is about pushing the boundaries of an involuntary relationship of not being able to see, and only being able to hear Acconci voicing his sexual fantasies around the gallery space. I believe this piece is mocking the idea of what art and being an artist means.
Acconci is abusing his power to purposely put his audience in an uncomfortable position, and it is difficult to understand whether this piece is purely to test the intimacies between audience and artist, or whether it is just perverse. This evasive relationship between audience and artist in Acconci’s work, does in fact link with Valie Export’s Gential Panic, and perhaps pushes the boundaries even further than that of Acconci’s work. Acconci’s piece was performed in a gallery space and Export’s, a public place which potentially could cause much more of an outrage than work performed in a gallery. When a piece is in a gallery it is automatically labelled as “art”, therefore, this perhaps excuses Acconci’s Seed Bed, whereas Export revealing her genitals to the public is difficult for public participants to view as art, and is perhaps therefore less excusable.
Overall, the audience as a participant is crucial to art in general. Without an audience, the piece can never be received and therefore a relationship or emotion is never established. This idea of “the Body on Edge” not only tests the lengths the artists will go to, to get their point across, but also tests the boundaries between the audience and the artist. Particularly in performance art, this relationship is crucial so a direct connection is established between the two bodily participants.
[1] Artaud, Theatre and it’s double, (1938), p.96
[2] Jones, Beneath this mask another mask (analogue and digital photography), self/image: technology, representation and the contemporary subject, (2006) Hereafter this will be reference parenthetically
[3] Valie Export, exhibition catalogue, (2003) p.148-9
[4] http://www.tate.org.yk/art/artwords/export-action-pants-gential-panic
[5] uk.phaidon.com/agenda/art/articles/2015/may/18/yoko-ono-s-cut-piece-explained
Anna Paskhin 