I'm Trans-Fixed

Generally when I go to a museum space or gallery and see post-modern art, especially videos, I feel like I'm just not getting it. I've realized, it's not that I'm not understanding the work, I'm just not asserting myself as much as the artist did.

Recently I have been focused on performance art, rather, the origins of modern performance art, which includes Allan Kaprow. He was interested in creating events with participants who are not artists and to break away from the notion that art could only be in a gallery or museum space.

Allan Kaprow, Household, 1964

For Kaprow, there are three key aspects of performance art:

-Time

-Sound

-People

The immediate association I made was to fashion shows. How do performance art and fashion shows differ? After some consideration, I realized there isn't much separation.

Each enable Kaprow's three aspects. Show's use time as a medium for their work, think about the amount of energy that goes into planning and assuring each model makes it down the runway or that the show begins on time. The sound, beyond the obvious runway music, the shuffling of the show notes or the clapping of shoes which enhance and make the experience. For Kaprow, the participants were just as important as the artist, isn't that the same for the industry? Show's couldn't exist if it weren't for the audience. Their participation enables critique, commerce, and accounts of the experience. This got me thinking on a larger scale. What Kaprow was looking for was spontaneity--an experience that exceeded his power of creative thought. I feel like designers are all looking for that unpredictable  response. They put their ideas forth, but have no control over the ultimate reaction.

Chris Burden, Transfixed (1974)

On a less fashion related rant, I'm really into the work of of another performance artist, Chris Burden. With his work, he literally became the art. In regards to 1971's Shoot, where he asked a friend to shoot a gun at his arm and graze it with a bullet, he said, "in this instant I am a sculpture."

Chris Burden, Shoot (1971)

I feel like his mentality has definitely crossed over into mainstream culture. The notion of becoming a self-phenomena and an extreme spectacular. Burden's Transfixed involved him nailing his hands to the hood of a car and letting it roll out of a garage. He saved the nails and called them "relics." We so often try to find ways to materialize an event in order to have proof that such event occurred. Like gift bags for instance, are all specialized proof of being present at an event. Why do we need recognition of attendance, especially through material items?

In your opinion, not mine

In short, my art history class is kick-ass. Every time I leave that class room my brain is going 1000 mph trying to a) figure out what the hell I just learned and b) realizing what I just learned relates to everything. Right now we are studying Neo-Dadaism, i.e. Jasper Johns, Robert Rauschenberg, Mimmo, and Jacques Villegle, which completely twists everything from Abstract Expressionism.

Photo: susanreep.com

Rue de la Biche, Saint Dennis (1963)

Jacques Villegle

Photo: Artnet

Target with Plaster Casts (1955)

Jasper Johns

Photo: The Public Interest

Rebus (1955)

Robert Rauschenberg

Don't worry, this isn't an art history lesson, but I do want to look at the motives behind Nouveau Realisme/Neo-Dada. The art is about the viewer and their journey disecting the crypticism in the works. In an Jasper Johns interview I read, he made it clear that it wasn't important what meaning he found in his works, he was more interested in the meaning the people looking at his work discovered.

So, after class, because this is just how my brain works, I immediately started to think about fashion and trying to figure out if this related to the industry or not. Do designers reserve their relationships with a collection for the intrigue in what the audience has to say? Or is it a melding of the two? With fashion I find that a designer is presenting the products of their creativity with the notion they will recieve feedback, and with the intent of explaining their vision, as well. Does the removal of explaination of the designers narrative nullify their creative process? Could this work in the fashion industry?

Damn you Phil!!!

If only I were home right now. I would have made the trip to Punxsutawny, the weather capital of the world,  to visit everyone's favorite groundhog. Unfortunately we will have a long winter, THANKS PHIL, but who could hate that lovable guy? A couple years ago it became a tradition in my house to stick out watching the 4 hour long televised celebration, due to its absolute insanity (i.e. out of sync high school dance troupes and  interviews with the "Inner Circle" which includes members with the titles of "Stump Warden" and "Thunder Conductor"). Here is a glimpse into some of the festivities, specifically apparel:

 

www.groundhogstuff.com

I'm sure within the next couple months, hipsters everywhere will be sporting this.

Okay, I couldn't do much better than that aside from a rhinestone paw shirt, which I refuse to post.

Another order of business. Go buy new The Magnetic Fields album, Realism. Now (even if Pitchfork only gave it a 6). Favorite tracks include: "You Must Be Out of Your Mind" and "The Dada Polka"

www.stereogum.com

This semester I am taking a Post-war and Contemporary Art History course, regardless if I've only had 2 classes, I feel it is going to be my favorite (Well, Human Sexuality does come close, it's your regular high school sex-ed class, but completely uncensored-- I'm usually bright red the entire time).

What attracts me to art history is not only is it a better version of any history class, but it puts something we see all the time, art, in a true cultural context. When you go to a museum, how long do you stand in front of a painting? What, maybe 30 seconds at most, if it's the Mona Lisa I'll give you 40. Every piece of work and artist has a story, and to have insight to them brings art appreciation to a whole new level. It's funny to think that people go to museums as a recreational activity, but rarely do they know what they are looking at. When people go to, say, a football game, they know exactly what's going on, but at an art museum, even those who have no background can enjoy it.

Fashion is the same, and at an even higher level. Not every day do we face a Fautrier or an Eagles game, but each morning we get dressed. We must face a history regardless if we know it or not. That safari dress you thought was cute at Bloomingdales? Someone didn't just think a khaki dress with buttons down the front would be cute, thank Yves. Everything in your wardrobe was created by someone, some thinker who had an idea and produced it. With our personal aesthetic, we represent someones thoughts. In order to reduce our excessive intake of trends and fast fashion, making an effort to understand the process behind what we wear will help the process to narrow down wardrobes.  Everyone can appreciate fashion, but like art, only until some familiarity with history is achieved can true appreciation occur.