Revisits of Performances
Some call them re-enactments, or appropriations, but I see them is re-visits as I am consciously doing it based on some well known performances recorded in history. However I do it again based on what I know and found out via books, texts, and other mediatized versions or documentations. With references to these however my interest is to not only remind us as in the form of documentation via action and incarnating it or re-doing them but to also question them in terms of shifting contexts and time. Hence to update them and bring it into relevance again or parallel to the currency of the time we are in here now. Where values have changed, social norms or decorums if not legality or regulations may also have changed. If not the technology or aesthetics according to tastes or globalized perspectives in a multi-cultural context.
Give Peace A Chance: Redux
Anthropometry Revision
Zen for Clay
Rite of Spring (Le Sacre du Printemps)
COSMOS: Currencies OfferingS Move Over Sky
Give Peace A Chance: Redux
Anthropometry Revision
Zen for Clay
Rite of Spring (Le Sacre du Printemps)
COSMOS: Currencies OfferingS Move Over Sky
Integrity, Originality , Credibility:
art, appropriation and authenticity in the age of internet....
art, appropriation and authenticity in the age of internet....
In response to the forum held in Yogjakarta titled, “Hak Milik dalam Performance Art,” I would like to give some points on how my work sometimes revisits historical performance. But, not exactly appropriating or re-enacting them, which I find is mistakenly seen by others as what I have been doing. In particular, I'm referring to at least two of my performances—1) Anthropometry Revision, and 2) Give Peace A Chance: Redux.
In the first place, my work exercises a remembrance and homage to the earlier work concerned, with regard to reminding ourselves of situations which are still prevalent today in our contemporary society and times, that is why I see it more as a re-visit, as it not only refers to the original performance and context, but also tries to update it by responding to the current situations, and hence pushing for changes in its perspectives first derived from its original historical performances. I do not see this as appropriation. I see this more as a critical response to the earlier work, by not, in particular, re-enacting in detail what has been done before. It could be seen like those parallel pictures as a puzzle for spotting the differences that we could see why I am critical of the earlier performances. For example, in the case of Yves Klein's Anthropometries, it is not just a simple matter of European vs Asian context, but also that of the artist's position in play here, i.e. Yves Klein is clean and dressed in a tuxedo like a dandy, not touching any of the paint that his models, beautiful and naked, had to be like paintbrushes under the instruction of the maestro painter, Yves Klein himself.
Also, I did it twice—once in China, once in Singapore, in a way which confronted the legality of nudity in public, and how to achieve it within the rules of the law. There was no intention to transgress the written law, but still to achieve the critical response to the earlier historical performance without compromise. In the case for Give Peace a Chance Redux, it is very clearly noted that I work with Kai Lam as a fellow artist, not in love, not getting married, but with direct reference to the personal and yet socially significant Bed in for peace of the famous yet infamous husband and wife anti-war hippie leadership of John and Yoko. In the first place, I place this performance well-within the idea of art and its possibility in terms of pedagogy, as this was a commissioned work for the Art Festival of Singapore Management University. Which as many of us know, SMU prides itself on being the Harvard of the East, and yet I find in terms of art and culture, our students lack the kind of sophistication if it was to pride itself that way.
For example, I overheard one of the students talking to his girlfriend in front of my installation one day, saying, “This guy is not a good guy, because he is a hippie, taking drugs and all that.” Not knowing that there were other implications in terms of Yoko Ono's substantial reputation in the world of contemporary art. Furthermore, one of the most important differences between this work and that of John and Yoko is that we were putting this in a shop space right in front of unsuspecting passers-by—office workers as well as the general public liking for shopping as well as lunch venues.
One of the essential critiques of John and Yoko's Bed in for Peace was that it neglected the chance for an openness towards random visitors, whereby there was an attacker who came up in the guise of being one of the film crew that surprised everyone and almost stopped the protest per se. Immediately after this manifestation, I was also invited by Rirkrit Tiravanija and Cheop of Project 304 who wanted to organise an art festival in Ho Chih Minh City, requested me to re-enact this in a hotel suite. My response was that it would not work since I'm not the celebrities John Lennon and Yoko Ono, therefore working in a hotel suite would be most inappropriate.
Anyway, although that project did not succeed due to other problems, this manifestation of my re-visit is more in particular a response to Singapore's paranoia to the use of art in the vein of social protest, as it was time at the same week as the World Bank meeting in Singapore, whereby in comparison to the venues of the other World Bank meetings protesters were not allowed into the country, and were held at bay on the Indonesian islands just outside of Singapore. Thus, my inclination for making this a proposal that art perhaps can be used as a vehicle for social protest when all else fails. Unfortunately, it seems more like a playful poke at the system which probably did nothing more than tickle our social body without much laughter.
What I'm trying to say here is that when we make reference to earlier performances of historical significance, we do not substantially have anything to offer unless we make some kind of critical response as well as doing it out of necessity in response to the current stat of affairs, and not just the whims and fancies for the sake of fortune and fame. To me, it is inexcusable to claim innocence of an earlier performance done by someone such as Yoko Ono, Yves Klein or Arahmaini for that matter. If artists are actually serious at making works of such nature, they should at least look up their precedence in history. Not only that of the west, and well-discussed famous artists, but also that of one's own country such as Indonesia. In the age of the internet, where information is easily accessible, how can one claim ignorance of such well known and much discussed performances and yet claim oneself a contemporary artist to be taken seriously?
As I ponder for the archive to be reconsidered as a necessarily and properly institutionalised project, i must add that my comments were made in anticipation to the announcement of the forum that i know i could not go witness in person. which on hindsight may not seem like a good idea. It gave reason or signals that called for "defensive" explanations that clever lawyers out for the kill, probably would not allow to transpire...However in cultural investigations my position is the proposal for a pursuit for academic standards based on comparative arguments offered by artists as peers whose aesthetic challenge includes a scholarly approach to historical investigations both indeed factual as well as philosophical truth and honest research. Not a childish game of blame.(This must not be read as a victimisation of the role of the artist but basically in the spirit of academia without apologia for fear of a misunderstood holier than thou judgement but to ensure artistic integrity at stake.if we ignore each artist's other's positions in due place.
In the first place, my work exercises a remembrance and homage to the earlier work concerned, with regard to reminding ourselves of situations which are still prevalent today in our contemporary society and times, that is why I see it more as a re-visit, as it not only refers to the original performance and context, but also tries to update it by responding to the current situations, and hence pushing for changes in its perspectives first derived from its original historical performances. I do not see this as appropriation. I see this more as a critical response to the earlier work, by not, in particular, re-enacting in detail what has been done before. It could be seen like those parallel pictures as a puzzle for spotting the differences that we could see why I am critical of the earlier performances. For example, in the case of Yves Klein's Anthropometries, it is not just a simple matter of European vs Asian context, but also that of the artist's position in play here, i.e. Yves Klein is clean and dressed in a tuxedo like a dandy, not touching any of the paint that his models, beautiful and naked, had to be like paintbrushes under the instruction of the maestro painter, Yves Klein himself.
Also, I did it twice—once in China, once in Singapore, in a way which confronted the legality of nudity in public, and how to achieve it within the rules of the law. There was no intention to transgress the written law, but still to achieve the critical response to the earlier historical performance without compromise. In the case for Give Peace a Chance Redux, it is very clearly noted that I work with Kai Lam as a fellow artist, not in love, not getting married, but with direct reference to the personal and yet socially significant Bed in for peace of the famous yet infamous husband and wife anti-war hippie leadership of John and Yoko. In the first place, I place this performance well-within the idea of art and its possibility in terms of pedagogy, as this was a commissioned work for the Art Festival of Singapore Management University. Which as many of us know, SMU prides itself on being the Harvard of the East, and yet I find in terms of art and culture, our students lack the kind of sophistication if it was to pride itself that way.
For example, I overheard one of the students talking to his girlfriend in front of my installation one day, saying, “This guy is not a good guy, because he is a hippie, taking drugs and all that.” Not knowing that there were other implications in terms of Yoko Ono's substantial reputation in the world of contemporary art. Furthermore, one of the most important differences between this work and that of John and Yoko is that we were putting this in a shop space right in front of unsuspecting passers-by—office workers as well as the general public liking for shopping as well as lunch venues.
One of the essential critiques of John and Yoko's Bed in for Peace was that it neglected the chance for an openness towards random visitors, whereby there was an attacker who came up in the guise of being one of the film crew that surprised everyone and almost stopped the protest per se. Immediately after this manifestation, I was also invited by Rirkrit Tiravanija and Cheop of Project 304 who wanted to organise an art festival in Ho Chih Minh City, requested me to re-enact this in a hotel suite. My response was that it would not work since I'm not the celebrities John Lennon and Yoko Ono, therefore working in a hotel suite would be most inappropriate.
Anyway, although that project did not succeed due to other problems, this manifestation of my re-visit is more in particular a response to Singapore's paranoia to the use of art in the vein of social protest, as it was time at the same week as the World Bank meeting in Singapore, whereby in comparison to the venues of the other World Bank meetings protesters were not allowed into the country, and were held at bay on the Indonesian islands just outside of Singapore. Thus, my inclination for making this a proposal that art perhaps can be used as a vehicle for social protest when all else fails. Unfortunately, it seems more like a playful poke at the system which probably did nothing more than tickle our social body without much laughter.
What I'm trying to say here is that when we make reference to earlier performances of historical significance, we do not substantially have anything to offer unless we make some kind of critical response as well as doing it out of necessity in response to the current stat of affairs, and not just the whims and fancies for the sake of fortune and fame. To me, it is inexcusable to claim innocence of an earlier performance done by someone such as Yoko Ono, Yves Klein or Arahmaini for that matter. If artists are actually serious at making works of such nature, they should at least look up their precedence in history. Not only that of the west, and well-discussed famous artists, but also that of one's own country such as Indonesia. In the age of the internet, where information is easily accessible, how can one claim ignorance of such well known and much discussed performances and yet claim oneself a contemporary artist to be taken seriously?
As I ponder for the archive to be reconsidered as a necessarily and properly institutionalised project, i must add that my comments were made in anticipation to the announcement of the forum that i know i could not go witness in person. which on hindsight may not seem like a good idea. It gave reason or signals that called for "defensive" explanations that clever lawyers out for the kill, probably would not allow to transpire...However in cultural investigations my position is the proposal for a pursuit for academic standards based on comparative arguments offered by artists as peers whose aesthetic challenge includes a scholarly approach to historical investigations both indeed factual as well as philosophical truth and honest research. Not a childish game of blame.(This must not be read as a victimisation of the role of the artist but basically in the spirit of academia without apologia for fear of a misunderstood holier than thou judgement but to ensure artistic integrity at stake.if we ignore each artist's other's positions in due place.
