i got to the museum of modern art today only 45 minutes before it closed. i spent all 45 minutes in one room of the six-story museum. the room displayed a single work created by performance artist, marina abramovic, as part of her show, the artist is present.the work in the room was striking - a woman, lit in a square of bright light, was standing on pegs several feet off the ground. her arms were held out to her sides and she was just barely sitting (just barely because she was standing on the pegs) on a bicycle seat. at first glance it may have even looked as though she was being impaled. she was naked.
at first i was struck by how still she was; how she could hold her arms out for so long (7 hours?) then my focus shifted to the other viewers and i simply started watching them watching her. the initial reactions, or lack of; the duration of time people spent concentrating on her- in their own way interacting with her as a work of living art. i began to wonder whether they saw her as a woman, a symbol, an idea. what? i also began to wonder whether the artist present was on the wall, on the ground looking up, or somewhere in between.
when my focus shifted back towards the woman on the wall i noticed her arms had moved (yes, it would be close to impossible to hold ones arms in the exact same place for seven hours. she slowly moved them up and down - so slowly her movement was barely perceptible). i also noticed that she was crying. her eyes had swollen with tears, and a few were running down her face. this struck a chord with me. partly because i didn't know if it was a part of the work, or because she was tired, because she herself (the person, not the performer) was suddenly sad? i was fascinated by that moment.
several minutes later i read the plaque on the wall that stated the title of the work and gave a brief description. it said it was not about loneliness but, aloneness. i find people easily confuse one for the other. the title of the work was luminosity.
3 comments:
while i am certainly interested in the piece, I can't help but feel the titillation factor is an overwhelming element that the "art" will not and cannot escape. It makes me sad that this woman subjects herself to holding her arms up (even though moving them slowly down) and stands for seven hours while hundreds of people stare at her body. What makes it so different from a peep show? Other than these people are not paying her? There is something sadistic and abusive to that kind of thinking. I am convinced that what people call "art" is sometimes just based on how much BS somewhat can convince someone else of. I feel this piece degrades the viewer. Does the viewer go to see the naked body or to go and see if the naked body will crack and become a human? Because the truth is, she is human and to "impale" her to a seat, strip her of her clothes, and call it "art" is to cheapen us as a culture, to strip of us our humanity, to pervert and excite under the ruse of a lie. But I suppose the "art" is effective because it sparked thought and dialogue. However is it really art or just the idea of calling a woman, naked, on display for strangers to see while she cries, art? It is controversial just as a concept, let alone an action. When I run into the homeless man at the Prospect Park Subway station who has his pants down around his ankles, lost in his own oblivion, his own "aloneness" I do not call it art. I call it tragedy and then I walk right past him.
i actually went back to the museum today. i saw three different people up on the wall over the course of about two hours. so i guess no one person does an exorbitantly long stretch of time. each person actually seemed very different... and no one was crying - i think i just caught an interesting moment the other day....
yes, this exhibit indeed makes many of us think about the question "what is art, anyway?" and if you have seen "my kid could paint that" you might have already asked yourself this question (in reference to "modern" art). i think the question is even more complex when looking at nudity in art because indeed the line of pornography seems thin.
i think, too, that the image of a figure in that position cannot help but conjure up ideas of JC on his cross, and something about making that figure female is thought provoking.
a friend just sent this link. pretty interesting stuff:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/arts/design/16public.html?hp
Post a Comment