Performance Art

Unlike THE Performing Arts (theater etc), Performance Art deals with the act of performance and the sensations of the person involved. Theater and other similar art forms deal more with the audience and the overall look of the play. Theater is performed for the benefit of the audience and to get across a story and characters. Performance art is not concerned about an audience, as a lot of it is performed without one, nor a plot. It is concerned about the human reaction and sensations involved during the act. What does the performer pay attention to? What things does the performer do on "auto pilot" and take for granted as human behavior (like brushing teeth).

Playing with Behaviors of Everyday Life

I did the activity today with Vicky, and it was very strange. When walking with the mirror, I found myself more focused on keeping the mirror steady in order to see her than actually making the faces. I didn't think twice about the faces, i just did whatever my brain my told me to, but the only thing I was really concentrating on was keeping the mirror steady. I also realized I didn't pay much attention to my pace of walking, and found that at some points I couldn't even focus on Vicky's face through the mirror- not really sure why but I guess I was concentrating on keeping balance.
I don't really know what my expectations were, it all happened like I thought it would, but I didn't think about the action before I did it, just "O yes, so we'll see each other in the mirror. Ok let's go." I also didn't get any strange sensations like Kaprow wrote about his sensation when brushing his teeth. I was aware of the physics involved, and I just paid attention to keeping the mirror up. I didn't have some strange "wow I naturally do this" sensation. But I did realize how I go on "auto-pilot" with other directions (like the faces) and I do them without even paying attention to what I'm doing.

Pattern

Pattern is something found throughout history and cultures. It goes in and out of style with clothing, and is on floors and walls. Patterns are very pleasing to the eye (unless it is extmremely busy) and is found in almost everything. Most popular are floor tiles and clothing. Floor tiles are easy patterns because to make a floor look complete they should all be the same, and to avoid drawing attention from the rest of the room, they should be very basic. Clothing patterns can have different styles, colors, and different styles- allowing all groups of people to be drawn towards it. Perhaps patterns keep similarity and consistancy when people's lives usually don't.

Duchamp

I'll come out at say it: I don't like Duchamp. Never have, probably never will. His "Nude Descending a Staircase" was great, new, and really a great study of motion with modernism (which I'm not a huge fan of in the first place). A shovel as art? C'mon. I think I should just draw a dot on a piece of paper and try to see which gallery would support my "minimalist" art. I could come up with some kind of explanation of why it's great. But that doesn't make it art.

I don't like the Bride piece, and I don't think it should have this great acclaim. It's not that great. Yes, it's a fresh idea with the notes etc, and yes I can understand the movement and mechanics this is supposed to represent between the bride and bachelors and all the gases and machines. I can even accept that the "bride runs on love gasoline (a secretion of the bride's sexual glands)" because sex and the attraction between men and women really is a chemical thing. It's great that he uses that and expresses it through the mechanics (which wasn't his main focus, but thought he put into it). But I don't like it, and I don't think it's a great achievement.

It's not visual pleasing. In fact, there's nothing really visual about it. Like the article said, Duchamp "defines art primarily as a mental act rather than a visual one." Art should evoke emotion and thought and be very much mental, but visual components is a HUGE part of art and should be what brings around the mental part. This is not "Mental Concepts" this is "Visual Concepts." Art is (as in Duchamp's genre of art) is visual. Music can be art as well as many other things. But art is mostly visual. Monet's lilypads and gardens don't evoke some mental thought from me, or make people painstakingly flip through notes to understand it, it's visual pleasing. Art = visual. That's the problem I have with Duchamp. He tries to be too philosophical. He takes something no one would consider art and calls it art, and because he stands by it and can explain it, people think it's amazing. Well, that seems like a con artist to me.

People can dedicate their whole lives trying to determine the line between art and real life. All I know, is that may be "art", but its not good art. Not by the definitions and terms I grew up with.