Lecture #2

Performer at Heart

Genevieve Erin O’Brien, even just in a lecture, was extremely compelling. I could tell she was a performance artist by the way she carried herself and spoke. The way in which she conveyed meaning to the audience was almost in itself a performance – confident and bold.

In her lecture she said that she wanted to “[have] everyone tell their own story, everyone has one.” I thought this was a fantastic yet simple statement to make. Her piece “The Monk Who Licked Me” seemed to illustrate this concept well. Although the people who got a free hair cut were just as equally “committing to peace,” they all had their different reasons for doing so. It could have been simply for the free haircut, it could have been because they saw someone else doing it, it could have been because they were and still are entirely devoted to peace and strive to create it in anyway they can. Regardless of what their reason was, by even participating, they were telling a story. Their very different and various stories told and shared helped to create an entirely new story – one that was looking for peace. Genevieve Erin O’Brien asked these people, “what is peace, what does it look like?” To this, and furthering her opening statement, she got a variety of answers. People define peace according to their own experiences and in a way, like the artist, perform and interact with the story they tell themselves. Genevieve Erin O’Brien mentioned that idea that like art, people have their individual relationships to peace and to war.

This idea made me think of my own relationship to art, peace and war. I have been surrounded by art more than war. Peace seems relative so I am still not sure where it fits into the mix. I know people in the military, but does that make me in any way closer to war itself? Or peace? These questions are ones I will and should continue to ask myself. I realize, though, that my answers are based upon the story I tell myself about what I’ve been through, what I’ve seen, what outcomes I project out of peace, art and war. I wonder if they are ever the same? The outcomes seem relative to those involved also.

Questions:
1) How do you deal with negative responses (and do they get physical) to your performance pieces?
2) What was the most surprising reaction someone had to the “Monk Who Licked Me” piece?

Lecture #1

Destruction in Art

During Dr. Rocio Aranda-Alvarado’s lecture, I was most engaged by her discussion of Rafael Montanez Ortiz, an artist both interested in the physically body and the destruction of art. Being the curator for the El Museo del Barrio in New York City, Aranda-Alvarado brought a much needed insight (for me) into the Latin (American) art scene. In her lecture, Ortiz became the trigger in discussing the notion that all artists engage in similar ideas, regardless of race. Body and physical destruction are some of those ideas.

Ortiz used his Avant Guard style to portray simple ideas. He was interested in public participation and interaction in his art. I was drawn to the work Ortiz did when he used a chair for a destruction performance. He bought a chair (to sit in) at a big event. Typically, these chairs were coveted. If you bought a chair, it was YOUR chair. After someone had been mistakenly sitting in it and Ortiz was verified by a waiter that he was the “owner” of the chair, he leaped into it, rolled around with it on the floor and just tore it apart. Aranda-Alvarado described people running away in confusion and worry after Ortiz’s unexpected performance. In destroying something as simple as a purchased chair, Ortiz comments of the ridiculousness of “owning” a chair and almost seems to claim that, in the end, it means nothing. It is probably even more entertaining to watch the chairs destruction versus just occupying it. Although, there is something interesting behind the fact that Ortiz actually had to involve himself in the possibly arbitrary act of purchasing a chair before he could destroy it.

Overall, Aranda-Alvarado, shed some light on ideas that many artists of different races share but focused on how Latin (American) artists did it well. I, personally, would like to experiment with producing art and having its destruction become a performance. The production of something can be extremely interesting and has the ability to similarly create thoughts in people. However, watching someone destroy something has the opposite effect. It makes us question why it was there in the first place, does it have a purpose. In Ortiz’s case, we ask if the chair’s purpose is being served? Its representation becomes the performance’s focus. The chair may represent high society, conformity and how money is spent. The destruction of the chair acts as a greater thought provoking art piece that it’s counter part – the creation of a chair.

Questions:
1) If you were personally at the performance where Ortiz destroyed the chair, how would you have reacted? Do you think it’s even possible to predict a reaction?
2) Who is your personal favorite Latin (American) artists and why?

Princess Peach Update #1

I bought a costume! I plan on using this as a basis for my costume and overall appearance. I want to add a bit of cardboard to the dress. For example, I plan on adding a big pendant to the middle of the dress for exaggeration. In addition, I want to stuff the bottom of the dress and maybe sleeves so it's extra poofy. The darker pink overlay will also be cardboard for exaggeration.

Here is the costume I bought:



The main cardboard will be on the head and hair. Here is the file to be printed out for Peach's face.

I'm not sure yet if I want to go with paper craft or just try to mimic the face on my own.

Cardboard!