masha

16 notes Ana Mendieta: Untitled, Blood and Feathers #2, 1974.

Ana Mendieta: Untitled, Blood and Feathers #2, 1974.

(Source: moodyashell)


39 notes

(Source: ewamncgregor)


75 notes Marina Abramovic and Ulay: Death self, 1977To create this Death self, the two performers devised a piece in which they connected their mouths and took in each other’s exhaled breaths until they had used up all of the available oxygen. Seventeen minutes after the beginning of the performance they both fell to the floor unconscious, their lungs having filled with carbon dioxide. This personal piece explored the idea of an individual’s ability to absorb the life of another person, exchanging and destroying it.

Marina Abramovic and Ulay: Death self, 1977

To create this Death self, the two performers devised a piece in which they connected their mouths and took in each other’s exhaled breaths until they had used up all of the available oxygen. Seventeen minutes after the beginning of the performance they both fell to the floor unconscious, their lungs having filled with carbon dioxide. This personal piece explored the idea of an individual’s ability to absorb the life of another person, exchanging and destroying it.

(Source: Wikipedia, via swallow-your-sadness)


16 notes An Open Letter From a Dancer Who Refused to Participate in Marina Abramovic’s MOCA PerformanceI participated in an audition on November 7th for performance artist Marina Abramovic’s production for the annual gala of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. I auditioned because I wanted to participate in the project of an artist whose work I have followed with interest for many years and because it was affiliated with MOCA, an institution that I have a connection with as a Los Angeles-based artist. Out of approximately 800 applicants, I was one of two hundred selected to audition. Ultimately, I was offered the role of one of six nude females to re-enact Abramovic’s signature work, “Nude with Skeleton” (2002), at the center of tables with seats priced at up to $100,000 each. For reasons I detail here — reasons that I strongly believe need to be made public — I turned it down.I am writing to address three main points: One, to add my voice to the discourse around this event as an artist who was critical of the experience and decided to walk away, a voice which I feel has been absent thus far in the LA Times and New York Times coverage; two, to clarify my identity as the informant about the conditions being asked of artists and make clear why I chose, up till now, to be anonymous in regards to my email to Yvonne Rainer; and three, to prompt a shift of thinking of cultural workers to consider, when either accepting or rejecting work of any kind, the short- and long-term impact of our personal choices on the entire field. Each point is to support my overriding interest in organizing and forming a union that secures labor standards and fair wages for fine and performing artists in Los Angeles and beyond.I refused to participate as a performer because what I anticipated would be a few hours of creative labor, a meal, and the chance to network with like-minded colleagues turned out to be an unfairly remunerated job. I was expected to lie naked and speechless on a slowly rotating table, starting from before guests arrived and lasting until after they left (a total of nearly four hours). I was expected to ignore (by staying in what Abramovic refers to as “performance mode”) any potential physical or verbal harassment while performing. I was expected to commit to fifteen hours of rehearsal time, and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement stating that if I spoke to anyone about what happened in the audition I was liable for being sued by Bounce Events, Marketing, Inc., the event’s producer, for a sum of $1 million dollars plus attorney fees.I was to be paid $150. During the audition, there was no mention of safeguards, signs, or signals for performers in distress, and when I asked about what protection would be provided I was told it could not be guaranteed. What I experienced as an auditionee for this work was extremely problematic, exploitative, and potentially abusive.I am a professional dancer and choreographer with 16 years of experience working in the United States, Canada, and Europe, and I hold a Master of Fine Arts degree in Dance from the University of California, Los Angeles. As a professional artist working towards earning a middle class living in Los Angeles, I am outraged that there are no official or even unofficial standard practice measures for working conditions, compensation, and benefits for artists and performers, or for relations between creator, performer, presenting venue and production company in regard to such highly respected and professionalized individuals and institutions such as Abramovic and MOCA. In Europe I produced over a dozen performance works involving casts up to 15 to 20 artists. When I hired dancers, I was obliged to follow a national union pay scale agreement based on each artist’s number of years of experience. In Canada, where I recently performed a work by another artist, I was paid $350 for one performance that lasted 15 minutes, not including rehearsal time that was supported by another fee for up to 35 hours, in accordance with the standards set by CARFAC (Canadian Artists Representation/Le Front Des Artistes Canadiens) established in 1968.If my call for labor standards for artists seems out of bounds, think of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG, established 1933), the American Federation of Musicians (AFM, founded 1896), or the umbrella organization the Associated Actors and Artistes of America (the 4A’s, founded in 1919), which hold the film, theater and music industries to regulatory and best practice standards for commercial working artists and entertainers. If there is any group of cultural workers that deserves basic standards of labor, it is us performers working in museums, whose medium is our own bodies and deserve humane treatment and respect. Artists of all disciplines deserve fair and equal treatment and can organize if we care enough to put the effort into it. I would rather be the face of the outspoken artist then the silenced, slowly rotating head (or, worse, “centerpiece”) at the table. I want a voice, loud and clear.Abramovic’s call for artists was, as the LA Times quoted, for “strong, silent types.” I am certainly strong but I am not comfortable with silence in this situation. I refuse to be a silent artist regarding issues that affect my livelihood and the culture of my practice. There are issues too important to be silenced and I just happen to be the one to speak out, to break that silence. I spoke out in response to ethics, not artistic material or content, and I know that I am not the only one who feels the way I do.I rejected the offer to work with Abramovic and MOCA — to participate in perpetuating unethical, exploitative and discriminatory labor practices — with my community in mind. It has moved me to work towards the establishment of ethical standards, labor rights and equal pay for artists, especially dancers, who tend to be some of the lowest paid artists.The time has come for artists in Los Angeles and elsewhere to unite, organize, and work toward changing the degenerate discrepancies between the wealthy and powerful funders of art and the artists, mainly poor, who are at its service and are expected to provide so-called avant-garde, prescient content or “entertainment,” as is increasingly the case — what is nonetheless merchandise in the service of money. We must do this not because of what happened at MOCA but in response to a greater need (painfully demonstrated by the events at MOCA) for equity and justice for cultural workers.I am not judging my colleagues who accepted their roles in this work and I, too, am vulnerable to the cult of charisma surrounding celebrity artists. I am judging, rather, the current social, cultural, and economic conditions that have rendered the exploitation of cultural workers commonplace, natural, and even horrifically banal, whether it is perpetrated by entities such as MOCA and Abramovic or self-imposed by the artists themselves.I want to suggest another mode of thinking: When we, as artists, accept or reject work, when we participate in the making of a work, even (or perhaps especially) when it is not our own, we contribute to the establishment of standards and precedents for our cohort and all who will come after us.To conclude, I am grateful to Rainer for utilizing her position (without a request from me) of cultural authority and respect to make these issues public for the sake of launching a debate that has been overlooked for too long. Jeffrey Deitch, director of MOCA, was quoted in the LA Times as saying, in response to receiving my anonymous email and Rainer’s letter, “Art is about dialogue.” While I agree, Deitch’s idea of dialogue here is only a palliative. It obscures a situation of injustice in which both artist and institution have proven irresponsible in their unwillingness to recognize that art is not immune to ethical standards. Let’s have a new discourse that begins on this thought.Sara Wookey is an artist, choreographer, and creative consultant based in Los Angeles. Her Web site is www.sarawookey.com.

An Open Letter From a Dancer Who Refused to Participate in Marina Abramovic’s MOCA Performance

I participated in an audition on November 7th for performance artist Marina Abramovic’s production for the annual gala of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. I auditioned because I wanted to participate in the project of an artist whose work I have followed with interest for many years and because it was affiliated with MOCA, an institution that I have a connection with as a Los Angeles-based artist. Out of approximately 800 applicants, I was one of two hundred selected to audition. Ultimately, I was offered the role of one of six nude females to re-enact Abramovic’s signature work, “Nude with Skeleton” (2002), at the center of tables with seats priced at up to $100,000 each. For reasons I detail here — reasons that I strongly believe need to be made public — I turned it down.

I am writing to address three main points: One, to add my voice to the discourse around this event as an artist who was critical of the experience and decided to walk away, a voice which I feel has been absent thus far in the LA Times and New York Times coverage; two, to clarify my identity as the informant about the conditions being asked of artists and make clear why I chose, up till now, to be anonymous in regards to my email to Yvonne Rainer; and three, to prompt a shift of thinking of cultural workers to consider, when either accepting or rejecting work of any kind, the short- and long-term impact of our personal choices on the entire field. Each point is to support my overriding interest in organizing and forming a union that secures labor standards and fair wages for fine and performing artists in Los Angeles and beyond.

I refused to participate as a performer because what I anticipated would be a few hours of creative labor, a meal, and the chance to network with like-minded colleagues turned out to be an unfairly remunerated job. I was expected to lie naked and speechless on a slowly rotating table, starting from before guests arrived and lasting until after they left (a total of nearly four hours). I was expected to ignore (by staying in what Abramovic refers to as “performance mode”) any potential physical or verbal harassment while performing. I was expected to commit to fifteen hours of rehearsal time, and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement stating that if I spoke to anyone about what happened in the audition I was liable for being sued by Bounce Events, Marketing, Inc., the event’s producer, for a sum of $1 million dollars plus attorney fees.

I was to be paid $150. During the audition, there was no mention of safeguards, signs, or signals for performers in distress, and when I asked about what protection would be provided I was told it could not be guaranteed. What I experienced as an auditionee for this work was extremely problematic, exploitative, and potentially abusive.

I am a professional dancer and choreographer with 16 years of experience working in the United States, Canada, and Europe, and I hold a Master of Fine Arts degree in Dance from the University of California, Los Angeles. As a professional artist working towards earning a middle class living in Los Angeles, I am outraged that there are no official or even unofficial standard practice measures for working conditions, compensation, and benefits for artists and performers, or for relations between creator, performer, presenting venue and production company in regard to such highly respected and professionalized individuals and institutions such as Abramovic and MOCA. In Europe I produced over a dozen performance works involving casts up to 15 to 20 artists. When I hired dancers, I was obliged to follow a national union pay scale agreement based on each artist’s number of years of experience. In Canada, where I recently performed a work by another artist, I was paid $350 for one performance that lasted 15 minutes, not including rehearsal time that was supported by another fee for up to 35 hours, in accordance with the standards set by CARFAC (Canadian Artists Representation/Le Front Des Artistes Canadiens) established in 1968.

If my call for labor standards for artists seems out of bounds, think of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG, established 1933), the American Federation of Musicians (AFM, founded 1896), or the umbrella organization the Associated Actors and Artistes of America (the 4A’s, founded in 1919), which hold the film, theater and music industries to regulatory and best practice standards for commercial working artists and entertainers. If there is any group of cultural workers that deserves basic standards of labor, it is us performers working in museums, whose medium is our own bodies and deserve humane treatment and respect. Artists of all disciplines deserve fair and equal treatment and can organize if we care enough to put the effort into it. I would rather be the face of the outspoken artist then the silenced, slowly rotating head (or, worse, “centerpiece”) at the table. I want a voice, loud and clear.

Abramovic’s call for artists was, as the LA Times quoted, for “strong, silent types.” I am certainly strong but I am not comfortable with silence in this situation. I refuse to be a silent artist regarding issues that affect my livelihood and the culture of my practice. There are issues too important to be silenced and I just happen to be the one to speak out, to break that silence. I spoke out in response to ethics, not artistic material or content, and I know that I am not the only one who feels the way I do.

I rejected the offer to work with Abramovic and MOCA — to participate in perpetuating unethical, exploitative and discriminatory labor practices — with my community in mind. It has moved me to work towards the establishment of ethical standards, labor rights and equal pay for artists, especially dancers, who tend to be some of the lowest paid artists.

The time has come for artists in Los Angeles and elsewhere to unite, organize, and work toward changing the degenerate discrepancies between the wealthy and powerful funders of art and the artists, mainly poor, who are at its service and are expected to provide so-called avant-garde, prescient content or “entertainment,” as is increasingly the case — what is nonetheless merchandise in the service of money. We must do this not because of what happened at MOCA but in response to a greater need (painfully demonstrated by the events at MOCA) for equity and justice for cultural workers.

I am not judging my colleagues who accepted their roles in this work and I, too, am vulnerable to the cult of charisma surrounding celebrity artists. I am judging, rather, the current social, cultural, and economic conditions that have rendered the exploitation of cultural workers commonplace, natural, and even horrifically banal, whether it is perpetrated by entities such as MOCA and Abramovic or self-imposed by the artists themselves.

I want to suggest another mode of thinking: When we, as artists, accept or reject work, when we participate in the making of a work, even (or perhaps especially) when it is not our own, we contribute to the establishment of standards and precedents for our cohort and all who will come after us.

To conclude, I am grateful to Rainer for utilizing her position (without a request from me) of cultural authority and respect to make these issues public for the sake of launching a debate that has been overlooked for too long. Jeffrey Deitch, director of MOCA, was quoted in the LA Times as saying, in response to receiving my anonymous email and Rainer’s letter, “Art is about dialogue.” While I agree, Deitch’s idea of dialogue here is only a palliative. It obscures a situation of injustice in which both artist and institution have proven irresponsible in their unwillingness to recognize that art is not immune to ethical standards. Let’s have a new discourse that begins on this thought.

Sara Wookey is an artist, choreographer, and creative consultant based in Los Angeles. Her Web site is www.sarawookey.com.


1 note Stuart Marshall: Pedagogue, 1988Performing artist Neil Bartlett plays a gay lecturer whose attempt to go back into the closet is betrayed by the contents of his briefcase. In reaction to Section 28, the law that forbids the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools in the U.K., Pedagogue satirizes the upstanding instructor’s dramatic influence on his students. A series of exaggerated testimonials by students parodies hysterical homophobia by proclaiming that Bartlett’s arrival at Newcastle has positively disrupted their steady relationships, lives, and identities of all friends and relatives within a twelve mile radius. Burlesqueing the interview/inquisition process, a roaming camera lustfully reads between the lines of Bartlett’s jeans and black leather jacket.WATCH THE VIDEO HERE: http://www.lux.org.uk/collection/works/pedagogue

Stuart Marshall: Pedagogue, 1988

Performing artist Neil Bartlett plays a gay lecturer whose attempt to go back into the closet is betrayed by the contents of his briefcase. In reaction to Section 28, the law that forbids the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools in the U.K., Pedagogue satirizes the upstanding instructor’s dramatic influence on his students. A series of exaggerated testimonials by students parodies hysterical homophobia by proclaiming that Bartlett’s arrival at Newcastle has positively disrupted their steady relationships, lives, and identities of all friends and relatives within a twelve mile radius. Burlesqueing the interview/inquisition process, a roaming camera lustfully reads between the lines of Bartlett’s jeans and black leather jacket.

WATCH THE VIDEO HERE: http://www.lux.org.uk/collection/works/pedagogue

(Source: vdb.org)


25 notes fyeahwomenartists: Hannah WilkeThrough the Large Glass, 197616mm film on video, color silent, 10 minutes  “Through the Large Glass documents one of Wilke’s most effective and well-known performances, in which she executed a languid striptease behind the cracked transparent surface of Marcel Duchamp’s famous work The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (The Large Glass), 1915–23, at the Philadelphia Museum of Art in 1976. Dressed in a fedora and a man’s white satin suit, she strikes a series of poses evoking the style of 1970s fashion photography and then strips, cleverly suggesting bride and bachelor simultaneously. In her self-conscious affectation of a fashion model, Wilke willfully uses her own image and her sexuality to confront the erotic representation of women in art history and popular culture.”

fyeahwomenartists:

Hannah Wilke
Through the Large Glass, 1976
16mm film on video, color silent, 10 minutes 

“Through the Large Glass documents one of Wilke’s most effective and well-known performances, in which she executed a languid striptease behind the cracked transparent surface of Marcel Duchamp’s famous work The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (The Large Glass), 1915–23, at the Philadelphia Museum of Art in 1976. Dressed in a fedora and a man’s white satin suit, she strikes a series of poses evoking the style of 1970s fashion photography and then strips, cleverly suggesting bride and bachelor simultaneously. In her self-conscious affectation of a fashion model, Wilke willfully uses her own image and her sexuality to confront the erotic representation of women in art history and popular culture.”


9 notes Mariko Mori: MIKO NO INORI, video still, 1996

Mariko Mori: MIKO NO INORI, video still, 1996


24 notes Ma Liuming, Fen-Ma Liuming Series I, 1993, Photograph Xu ZhiweiFen-Ma Liuming was a name Ma Liuming gave to himself to distinguish his performing self from his actual self. “Fen” means pleasant fragrance in Chinese, and it is often used as another word for women. “Fen-Ma Liuming” becomes a hybrid symbol: it indicates an “art object” which consists of a nice-looking woman’s face on a man’s body. Fen-Ma Liuming, a transgender creation who dresses like a woman but has a man’s body, was born in 1993. The combination of his enchanting nudity and his unexpected bisexuality, deliver a captivating live performance. The final appearance of Fen-Ma Liuming was at the 2002 Asia Performance Art Festival in Fukuoka, Japan. After that, Ma Liuming stopped giving his performances.

Ma Liuming, Fen-Ma Liuming Series I, 1993, Photograph Xu Zhiwei

Fen-Ma Liuming was a name Ma Liuming gave to himself to distinguish his performing self from his actual self. “Fen” means pleasant fragrance in Chinese, and it is often used as another word for women. “Fen-Ma Liuming” becomes a hybrid symbol: it indicates an “art object” which consists of a nice-looking woman’s face on a man’s body.

Fen-Ma Liuming, a transgender creation who dresses like a woman but has a man’s body, was born in 1993. The combination of his enchanting nudity and his unexpected bisexuality, deliver a captivating live performance. The final appearance of Fen-Ma Liuming was at the 2002 Asia Performance Art Festival in Fukuoka, Japan. After that, Ma Liuming stopped giving his performances.

(Source: artzinechina.com)


8 notes Jessica Lagunas. Para besarte mejor (The Better to Kiss You With), New York 2003”Video close-up of my mouth in a static single shot, where I apply red lipstick continuously for one-hour.”

Jessica Lagunas. Para besarte mejor (The Better to Kiss You With), New York 2003

”Video close-up of my mouth in a static single shot, where I apply red lipstick continuously for one-hour.”


32 notes Jessica Lagunas: Para Verte Mejor (The Better to See You With), New York 2005”Video close-up of my eyes in a static single shot, where I apply black mascara continuously for one-hour.”

Jessica Lagunas: Para Verte Mejor (The Better to See You With), New York 2005

”Video close-up of my eyes in a static single shot, where I apply black mascara continuously for one-hour.”


31 notes Marina Abramovic: Rhythm 0, 1974InstructionsThere are 72 objects on the table that can be used on me as desired.PerformanceI am the object. During this time I take full responsibility.6 hours (8 pm-2 am)Studio Morra, NaplesList of obects on the table:gunbulletblue paintcombbellwhiplipstickpocket knifeforkperfumespooncottonflowersmatchesrosecandlewaterscarfmirrordrinking glasspolaroid camerafeatherchainsnailsneedlesafety pinhairpinbrushbandagered paintwhite paintscissorspenbookhathandkerchiefsheet of white paperkitchen knifehammersawpiece of woodaxstickbone of lambnewspaperbreadwinehoneysaltsugarsoapcakemetal pipescalpelmetal spearbox of razor bladesdishfluteband aidalcoholmedalcoatshoeschairleather stringsyarnwiresulphurgrapesolive oilrosemary branchapple(Source: Marina Abramovic: The Artist Is Present - Klaus Biesenbach and Marina Abramovic)

Marina Abramovic: Rhythm 0, 1974

Instructions
There are 72 objects on the table that can be used on me as desired.

Performance
I am the object. During this time I take full responsibility.

6 hours (8 pm-2 am)
Studio Morra, Naples

List of obects on the table:
gun
bullet
blue paint
comb
bell
whip
lipstick
pocket knife
fork
perfume
spoon
cotton
flowers
matches
rose
candle
water
scarf
mirror
drinking glass
polaroid camera
feather
chains
nails
needle
safety pin
hairpin
brush
bandage
red paint
white paint
scissors
pen
book
hat
handkerchief
sheet of white paper
kitchen knife
hammer
saw
piece of wood
ax
stick
bone of lamb
newspaper
bread
wine
honey
salt
sugar
soap
cake
metal pipe
scalpel
metal spear
box of razor blades
dish
flute
band aid
alcohol
medal
coat
shoes
chair
leather strings
yarn
wire
sulphur
grapes
olive oil
rosemary branch
apple

(Source: Marina Abramovic: The Artist Is Present - Klaus Biesenbach and Marina Abramovic)


9 notes In 1975, Carolee Schneemann performed Interior Scroll, a Fluxus-influenced piece featuring her use of text and body. In her performance, Schneemann entered wrapped in a sheet, under which she wore an apron. She disrobed and then got on a table where she outlined her body with dark paint. Several times, she would take “action poses”, similar to those in figure drawing classes. Concurrently, she read from her book Cézanne, She Was a Great Painter. Following this, she dropped the book and slowly extracted from her vagina a scroll from which she read. Schneemann’s feminist scroll speech, according to performance theorist Jeanie Forte, made it seem as if “[Schneemann]’s vagina itself is reporting […] sexism”. Interior Scroll, along with Judy Chicago’s Dinner Party, helped pioneer many of the ideas later popularized by the off-broadway show The Vagina Monologues.

In 1975, Carolee Schneemann performed Interior Scroll, a Fluxus-influenced piece featuring her use of text and body. In her performance, Schneemann entered wrapped in a sheet, under which she wore an apron. She disrobed and then got on a table where she outlined her body with dark paint. Several times, she would take “action poses”, similar to those in figure drawing classes. Concurrently, she read from her book Cézanne, She Was a Great Painter. Following this, she dropped the book and slowly extracted from her vagina a scroll from which she read. Schneemann’s feminist scroll speech, according to performance theorist Jeanie Forte, made it seem as if “[Schneemann]’s vagina itself is reporting […] sexism”. Interior Scroll, along with Judy Chicago’s Dinner Party, helped pioneer many of the ideas later popularized by the off-broadway show The Vagina Monologues.


2 notes

In 1974, Wilke began work on her photographic body art piece S.O.S — Starification Object Series in which she merged her minimalist sculpture and her own body by creating tiny vulval sculptures out of chewing gum and sticking them to herself. She then had herself photographed in various pin-up poses, providing a juxtaposition of glamour and something resembling tribal scarification, and Wilke has related the scarring on her body to an awareness of the Holocaust. These poses exaggerate and satirize American cultural values of feminine beauty and fashion. This work was originally created as a game, “S.O.S. Starificaion Object Series: An Adult Game of Mastication,” 1974-75, which Wilke made into an installation that is now in the Centre Pompidou, Paris. She also performed this piece publicly in Paris in 1975, having audience members chew the gum for her before she sculpted them and placed them on papers that she hung on the wall.


10 notes I only knew, from this experience, one thing for sure: public can kill you. -Marina Abramovic on Rhythm 0 (1974)

I only knew, from this experience, one thing for sure: public can kill you. -Marina Abramovic on Rhythm 0 (1974)


8 notes

(archive message credit)