Today in class we discussed the idea that performance art brings something unique and different to the table that other types of art do not. Performance art is when an actor is performing in a play or a band is performing in a concert. Performance art is so unique, first and foremost because there a living, breathing people involved. People can reach out and grab the audience while conveying a message in a way that non performing art can not. An object may exude a particular emotion, but it can not reach out and sometimes literally grab the audience. People are unique and mysterious. People are ever changing. An actor delivers a line in a play for three nights in a row for the the run of a show or musical. Every single night the actor can change the inflection of their voice, changing the message they are trying to convey. Non performing art cannot do this.
Therefore the question that i pose is is performing art in a sense better because it has the ability to change unlike non performing art?
I read through this post and kim's response, and I must say I am certainly one to lean more towards what Kim has said. I think that the signifigance of either side cannot be declared as better or worse on the whole. It is also specifically important to point out that their differences are the reasons each can be qualified as an interesting an independant for of its own art.
ReplyDeleteThe concept of the live show being more "real" or "imperfect" only allows you to see the actual actions of what the live performers are doing at x,y,or z showing. The recording of their work though is the closest thing that we can witness and experience to what the artist was trying to convey... it is the closest we have to the perfection that they concocted. And when it comes down to it, both sides of this coin are equally interesting and valuable towards our goal of having something to listen to and enjoy as receptors of art.
Do you personally feel that the concept of live show or stagnent art are equal or that one is better... and why?