http://republicofdaydreams.
Como en el mail en el que lo comunicó hay una abierta invitación al comentario, aquí está el mío:
Dear Lee Wen:
Firstly I beg your pardon for my bad English. It is important for me that you can put it apart and try to understand what I want to, sincerely and truly, say.
I read carefully your text about re-enactments in performance art.
As you know the origin of re-enactment is the re-creation (re-presentation) of historical battles and other ancient celebrations. I.E, in the Spanish mediterranean coast's villages there is an annual re-enactment of the christian rituals called “The Passion” where the common people of the villages represents the Jesus crucifixion and dead, since the Middle Ages.
And of course there are a lot of events along the planet where people does that kind of rites and everybody knows what kind of “acts” are they.
About rites and rituals, it is impossible for me to reproduce what Friederich Nietzsche wrote in his book “The born of the Greek Tragedy”. Briefly he says that the famous and well appreciated Greek tragedy is a treachery to the “real” instance in which the peoples do an catharsis about their feelings and believes. Just because they honestly believe in the re-presentation (He “is-present- again-here-and-now”) of the god Dionisio. In opposition of the tragedy conceived for Euripides just like an theatrical show.for just an audience, were the “actors” symbolize (represents) the presence of the god.
So, there are two (at least) minnings of re-presentation: presentation again and symbolized presence.
I think for every performer the difference is clear. ¡But not for the audience!
And these is a very important point. As Mayo, and yourself, make to note: “It’s in contrast with the 1993 performance where everything was spontaneous, the shock of the audience authentic and the violence spilling everywhere. It was, as Lee Wen described afterwards to me, an “innocent audience”. Loo’s audience was somewhat tainted by some kind of cynicism.”
Why these cynicism? Why they are not innocent?
Because we, the performers convert them from participants to audience. Because we, the performers, do that Action Art became Performance Art, one more into the scenic disciplines, a show finally. Something which happens into the “art world”not in the day by day life, and, like that, pure symbolism. A not real thing, Exactly like Coca-Cola did becoming “The real thing” in its 60's advertisements.
May be you know that a few months ago, in Venezuela, in the End of the Course's Presentation from an Arts School, a young man died doing a performance.
He covered and tied his head with a plastic bag. Nobody knows what he tried to do, but the fact was that he, after a few moments, fall on the stage and began to agitate arms and legs till he fell inactive. Time passed and when the teacher and the other students reclaim him to get back, they realized that he was dying. Some hours later he dead at the hospital.
Asked the teacher and the audience, every body told that they believed he was acting.
Is the same audience's reaction that I feel when saw the O’Shaughnessy’s performance at Madrid.
Why the audience do not reacts against when “Shoes off and put to one side, ditto socks on the other, throwing them around (in some cases hitting some audience members who weren’t particularly happy) as Mayo said.? It is clear: they are watching a show, a piece of art, and, you know ”those artists always doing silly things. Do not take it seriously”.
I think while we, the Action's artists, do not say and act “really” the people will not believe us. And, for the rest, questions about re-enactments possibility or impossibility, are merely musings in the void.
Believe me if I say that there is nothing against your reflexions. Is just I think there are main and urgent problems to solve into the Action Art.
Your admirer and not fan(atic) follower
Hilario
Con fecha 1 de diciembre ésta es la contestación de Lee Wen:
Con fecha 1 de diciembre ésta es la contestación de Lee Wen:
| "Lee Wen | 1 de diciembre de 2011 17:21 |
thank you Hilario Alvarez Diaz i understand exactly what you are talking about but still it seems to me you miss my point. it is true in historical and traditional rituals and rites, reenactments have certain expectations that may or may not be as 'authentic' as they claim, however i believe they do serve the people in those times as relevant manifestations in terms of incarnation of dieties or levels of escstasy or spiritual experiences as they were meant to be, as ours is a different time with an evolved consciousness hence the need for different processes, actions, performances etc that may serve our age. while some may adhere to time tested beliefs those of our time who seek the new out of necessity not any contrived ambition nor merely aping out of lack but to address unresolved questions. i find your rejections like many others who in contrast claim originality are missing the point that many new questions and more relevant to present situation are being addressed when we choose with well thought out choice of how the reenactments are done than many more self proclaimed original intended work done impulsively or without much significance to present state of our crises ridden society."
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario