Topic: some notes

- When van Mechelen quotes a general statement about performance art being ephemeral and not-reducible to any documentation we can also get back to Jacques Rancière and le partage du sensible. There he breaks all the illusions about the autonomy of the work of art, all the illusions also of the autonomy and "purity" of the idea of medium.
- Rancière is also proclaming that the end of the images is already behind us. the construcitvists and futurists, Mallarmé, Kandinksy were trying to make an "new " sort of art. Where art was not different from politics or from life, where the realization of art was in its cancelation.
- The performance artists of the time occupying van Mechelen in her book were stating the radical ontology of their work in a specific space at a specific time. All documentation of their performance was a reduction and a treachery. If this idea is brought to its limit even talking about those performances, or relating the experience of having witnessed one would be a reduction and should be banned. Those performances should be kept in the secret of the first audience as something they have shared in a secret intimacy.
But those works entered history because they have, in one way or another, been documented. The approach of van Mechelen is a documentary one and an archivist one. She participates in the creating of a modern myth around performance (myth always has some parts of mystery linked with secrets or the testimony of a few).
- The idea of transgession used centrally for our project is linked to the idea that in some situations we are not only looking at at works but they are looking back. It is the central idea of Georges Didi-Huberman in ce que nous voyons, ce qui nous regarde. Didi states in the first pages that we need to close our eyes in order to see, the act of seeing is opening an abyss that constitutes us, watching inside of this abyss is watching in us. We can link this idea with Agamben stating that the human eye will always be directed towards obscurity. This obscurity is watching us. But back to Didi: He states that the act of watching can only be understood in an interaction between us who are watching and the "thing" which is giving us back the gaze. In that sense watching inside obscurity is like watching a grave. You cannot watch grave wihtout the grave watching you back. Calling you out. The grave is calling you inside the abyss, absorbing the viewer inside the void of his future.

2

Re: some notes

daran knüpfst Du ja mit Deinem Vorschlag an, über Performances nicht zu sprechen, weil nur so das einmalige erlebnis im moment sich gegen