Midterm

Part 1:
Performance Art can be defined as any kind of performance or live showing that is not able to be bought or sold as a commodity. It is easy to call almost anything performance art. I believe that the fact that it is experimental allows all people to create art. I think that performance art can be a great outlet to the majority of people who want to express themselves.
If I were to produce a piece of performance art, I would definitely make it a form or dance. Being a dancer for 13 years, I really understand how dance can be a form of art. Dance is a very expressive art form and there are several different kinds. It can express different feelings or problems in current society. It can also just release stress or anger or any kind of feelings that are being held inside. I think that this is exactly what artists look for when they create a work of art. Art is the best form of expression and I think that performance art is even better. This is because I think it can be spontaneous and you can create it whenever, where ever, about whatever the artist is feeling at the time. I would perform by myself because I think that as an artist it is important that you perform it exactly as you want and not have other people feel the art for you. As for a setting, I would probably want to perform in a place where many people would be able to see so that I am reaching the population. Therefore I think I’d choose to perform somewhere such as Central Park in New York City. It would be during a cool, summer day in the afternoon and it would only be a short performance. I don’t believe that you need hours or an entire day to express your feelings through art. I would include an audio component because I feel that all kinds of music are a form of art which would add to the meaning and the better understanding of my performance.
I would begin my performance as sitting on a bench in Central Park. I will then begin some music and rise. Then, I would dance and express myself through Irish dancing. I can, through this form of art, express my feelings and the story of immigration from Ireland. Through my dance and some Irish music, I could easily tell a story without words through a form of art, by myself. I think that this is different than other forms of performance art such as Joseph Beuys. I do not think that I would make a script because I feel that the best art is spontaneous. I would most likely just allow myself to improvise as I go along because I feel like it would be felt better by the artist and the viewers if it was not all planned out.

Part 2:

In the interview between Elizabeth Armstrong and Bruce Conner, Armstrong questions Conner on when he first became introduced to Duchamp. Conner had first been introduced in the late 1940’s in magazines. When asked what kind of questions came to mind about Duchamp, Conner explains that this question itself is questioning. I agree with this statement because a lot of Duchamp’s work was very strange and unique from everyone else’s. It just shows that even artists don’t fully understand all of Duchamp’s intentions when he produced works of “art” such as the urinal. Conner also states that you can use Duchamp as a reference for many kinds of art. This is due to the fact that Duchamp saw just about everything as art, which made him so different from all other artists. The idea that one could make anything art wasn’t always widely accepted but each individual could find some work of Duchamp that they felt was art. For example, the idea that Conner wouldn’t sign or stamp his own art work was an idea that came from the ideals of Duchamp. I think it is very interesting that even little things, such as signing your own art work or having someone else stamp your signature, can make such a huge difference to the artist. It just goes to show that every little detail of every piece of art work is extremely important and that Duchamp felt the same way.
The interview between Martha Buskirk and Sherrie Levine explains one of Levine’s works that has many qualities of Duchamp. In Levine’s show sale, she took an everyday object, such as shoes, and brought it into a gallery to sell. She took the basis of her idea from the ideas of Duchamp in that she is taking an original object and turning it into a “fabricated readymade”. Levine explains that the shoes were in such a strange state because they weren’t just shoes, but they were not quite considered art. I think that this is very similar to Duchamp’s work because he took things that were not accepted as art and labeled it art. People wear shoes everyday and most wouldn’t view them as art. Levine really took ideas of Duchamp and brought his ideals by showing and selling shoes in an art gallery. As an appropriation artist, Levine took the ideas of Duchamp and sculpted a urinal in her own views. She, like Duchamp, viewed all of her artwork on a conceptual basis. I believe that this is a huge difference in artists such as Duchamp and Levine and the typical conventional artists. Most artists will view a painting or a sculpture or a drawing as art, not a plain, white urinal. I think this really makes both Duchamp and Levine stand out as artists.
The interview between Martha Buskirk and Louise Lawler discusses when she was first introduced to Duchamp. Lawler presented a gift certificate as a piece of art. This was very similar to Duchamp’s piece of art work of checks. Lawler doesn’t admit that Duchamp was where she got her ideas from, but she does argue that although there are similarities you can’t assume that all unique ideas lead back to Duchamp. I think that although this is true, ideas can come from everywhere. When creating a piece of art or writing a paper, ideas or words come out that you have seen and heard before. I think that subconsciously, Lawler definitely was influenced by Duchamp, but it may not have been her only influence.
As a museum curator, Fred Wilson takes his job very personally. I believe that this is great because I think that if art is going to be truly art, it has to be personal. The artist must feel some kind of connection to it no matter what kind of art it is. Wilson explains to Buskirk that his form of art work is emotional and that he works on art as it relates to him. Again I stress that this is hugely important for any artist to admit because I believe that is when you know it is considered art. I think that Wilson’s approach is very different from many others which could be somewhat related to Duchamp. With that being said, Wilson and Duchamp are totally different artists in that Wilson is taking things and changing them and the idea they give out. Duchamp is presenting everyday items as artwork. I think that Wilson is trying to say that everyone can view art differently and can make just about anything art but it’s not going to be directly related to Duchamp and it’s not going to be the same kind of idea. I think that relating these two artists is kind of challenging because they are so different in that Wilson finds art within art, which I think is extremely interesting and sounds very difficult.
The last interview between Elizabeth Armstrong and Ed Ruscha I think really gives a great perspective on how Duchamp affected the art world. I agree with Ruscha’s statement that Duchamp’s art work needs to be felt in order to really understand it. I feel that this is a huge part of art and that it is important to have some kind of meaning if you’re going to call something art. Duchamp could do just that. Also, I really like Ruscha’s statement on Duchamp’s presence and if he hadn’t come along when he did, someone would have had to do the same thing. I think that although Duchamp’s kind of art is not what most people consider art, it was necessary for someone to come along and create the kind of things that Duchamp did. I think that Duchamp’s approach to things definitely helped define what art is. Ruscha’s interview I think really shows that he appreciates Duchamp’s ideals.