Self-Destructive Art?

[MuseedesBeauxArts]

I've come across some intriguing things as I've dabbled in art history.

Quite some time ago, I mentioned a couple of modern artists (Gina Pane and Franko B ) who have used self-injury as a part of body art performances. At the time, I included a few relevant soundbites about the ideas behind each one....about Gina Pane's ideas: "Pane's art addressed the anaesthetization of a society numbed by the violence in everyday life." She also "equated masquerade with masochism, questioning the relationship between vulnerability and violence." And a quote from Franko B: "I believe that my work is honest, that it comes from a pure source. That's why it's important to me that my performances are not faked, not staged with blood capsules like a piece of theatre. I am trying to create something beautiful. I am trying to make the unbearable bearable." In interviews, Franko B explicitly distances his work from cutting, saying that his blood-letting is akin to giving blood, not to the complex problem of self-injury.

Marina Abramovic (long connected to Ulay) and Chris Burden are other names mentioned in discussions of extreme, potentially self-destructive performance art. Abramovic says that part of her interest actually lies in the exchanges that occur with her audience during such performances. Moreover, "Her performances are a series of experiments aimed at identifying and defining limits: of her control over her own body; of an audience's relationship with a performer; of art and, by extension, of the codes that govern society. Her profound and ambitious project is to discover a method, through art, to make people more free."* Burden seems to be more interested in the violence of our society and our desensitization to it.

Phew. After all that, I guess I would just be curious to hear thoughts about artists like these and their work. And if any of you have more context or knowledge about these artists, please jump in!

Some initial questions: Is this art different from the cutting and other self-destructive acts described in other threads here? Do you think it is a necessary/appropriate form of expression for the ideas they're trying to convey (about violence, desensitization, limits, etc)? Is it art? ;) Do you find that these images keep us from being desensitized or further desensitize us to violence? What is our role as the audience for such self-inflicted suffering? Do you think art like this can be a part of healing for the artist or audience? Are we voyeurs or is our role more complex? Or take it where you will....

If you're interested in more background:
PLEASE NOTE--some of these links may contain triggering or disturbing images (mods, please remove any you find inappropriate)
http://arcotheme.chez-alice.fr/gigi.gif (Gina Pane)
http://www.artecontexto.com/www/007/gina_pane_engb.pdf (Gina Pane) [4-page article]
http://www.eyestorm.com/feature/ED2n_article.asp?article_id=38 (Marina Abramovic)*
http://www.hotreview.org/articles/marinaabram.htm (Marina Abramovic) [extensive review]
http://arted.osu.edu/160/14_Burden.php (Chris Burden)
http://www.franko-b.com/text/artist_statement.htm (Franko B )
http://www.bdpworld.com/books/list/art/frankoh/frankbig.jpg (Franko B )
http://www.cork2005.ie/images/events/frankob1.jpg (Franko B )

[kuranes]

When I heard about the guy who placed an ad that was responded to ( for someone to eat him ) I remembered hearing about an artist who had supposedly done a movie that showed him ( while anaesthetized, I guess ) slicing his penis into sections for "art". I guess I'm turned off by this sort of thing. I'll check out your links and see how these artists ( neither of whom I'm familiar with ) make me feel. A long-ago story by Tennessee Williams was prescient about the cannibal arrangement, although his version has a racial element to it. I've recently got to know a young guy who is a "cutter", and I'm baffled by this behavior. A little bit of pain can be euphoic via the endorphins, but I've never had an interest in exploring the far frontiers of this fetish.

[MuseedesBeauxArts]

Yes, some of this is hard stuff to look at. However beautiful or interesting the ideas and motivations behind the art might be, the images of the art itself are difficult. But I think this difficulty (and complexity, too) is what intrigues me. I'm not sure what I think either, so that's why I brought it here to explore further. :)

[EmmaPeel]

I agree with Kuranes. I don't consider cutting one's body to be art. I don't even want to click on your links.

[MuseedesBeauxArts]

I agree with Kuranes. I don't consider cutting one's body to be art. I don't even want to click on your links.

Why isn't it art? Because it includes an element of self-destruction? Because anybody can cut themselves up and spout artistic reasons for doing so? Or something else entirely?

[Pan]

The first thing that pops to my mind is the connection to flagellant religious behaviour - no doubt partly because of the overtly religious and ritual imagery used in some of the art. I suspect you would have to inhabit a similar mindspace to repeatedly do something like that - the mental and physical discipline, the concept of healing yourself and others spiritually through these actions... the belief in the power of sacrifice.

So I guess I'm saying it seems less like art and more like personal religious expression to me. The role of the audience is, I believe, to be healed, absolved.

Edit:


However beautiful or interesting the ideas and motivations behind the art might be, the images of the art itself are difficult.Actually I find the concept more difficult than the images. The last Franko B link you gave is really quite a stunning photo.

[kuranes]

I didn't have the time last night, nor was I in the state of mind, to do your linked articles justice. I read and viewed all but one of them tonight. The Chris Burden link appeared to be broken. ( It didn't work for me, anyway. )

Having looked over both the art and the photos of the artists at work, I turned to the commentary on the artists. It was interesting how the artists wished their work to be understood in the broader sphere, and how the pundits explained it ( perhaps in conjunction with a shared vision ? )

I went into it thinking about both what Pan had said, and also remembering my own thoughts on masochism. The text for the photos on Gina Pane ( "pain" ? ) made a point of indicating that it was neither masochism nor performance art that she was engaged in. Amongst the selection of artists you gave us, MDBA, it appears that Gina is the one who is most interested in separating herself from the concept of "performance", although it was twice mentioned that her higher goal of feminism was not explicit. By doing things such as cutting her fingers while applying nail polish and cradling a painfully thorny rose bush like an infant, she is attempting to depict a need for a rebellion against society's control of and impositions on our bodies. When I read about her climbing up steps covered with barbs, in protest over Vietnam, it reminded me of the Buddhist priests who set themselves on fire in a public square, once, for the same reason. ( Which takes me back to Pan's statements about religion vs. art, though Buddhism ( in most of its forms ) is not a "religion", per se. ) One of her big points is how passive society is about any incursions that are not obviously against their short term interests. So . . . a shrug of shoulders to a war not directly affecting them, or . . .a shrug of shoulders at being forced to adopt the formal conventions of the day.

It was interesting that Marina Abramovic was described ( at least in some statements ) as being a "performance artist", although the presumably higher goal of feminism was mentioned in conjunction with her also. Still, she didn't seem to mind the label of "performance artist" as much. In fact it was brought up that performance art was something beyond what used to be called a "staged event", and that even "stagings" had now achieved new meanings. So there was a kind of hierarchy at play. "Performance art" was described with words such as "confessional", "theatrical", "narrative" and even "heightening a spectator's sense of the moment"; none of which I have a problem with. The word "sensational" was even slipped in while no one was looking.

FrankoB hastens to inform us that his work is, in fact, personal, but not "naval gazing". He stresses the word "community" to offset what might have been seen by hypothetical critics as being pure iconoclastic individuality otherwise.

In a way, it was interesting to see the art involved in just attempting to explain these "self-destructive" people. I thought it interesting that one person said "She offered us her pain, and we felt we owed it to her to stay."

My own reactions veered between respect and also memories of people doing parodies of Susan Sontag's "Illness as Metaphor".

* Kuranes types reminder to himself to tell story of Joe Coleman's performance art sometime *

[escapeTheVoid]

Some initial questions: Is this art different from the cutting and other self-destructive acts described in other threads here? Do you think it is a necessary/appropriate form of expression for the ideas they're trying to convey (about violence, desensitization, limits, etc)? Is it art? ;) Do you find that these images keep us from being desensitized or further desensitize us to violence? What is our role as the audience for such self-inflicted suffering? Do you think art like this can be a part of healing for the artist or audience? Are we voyeurs or is our role more complex? Or take it where you will....



I consider this art. It might be thought of as inappropriate if you believe it's masochism rather than art, or feel art must conform to established standards or be mindful of cultural sensibilities. I don't. I consider this a very personal from of artistic expression: one that blurs the line between artist and canvas. It has some of the trappings of personal religious expression (alluded to by Pan), but in this context, the subject (particular commentary on society) is more important than the artist (object). Also these performances are devoid of stock [religious] symbolism, and correct interpretation of the piece requires a continual conversation between artist and audience. The audience becomes an integral part in "creating" the art. Maybe a sense of spiritual transformation is achieved when artist and audience have fully connected, but I think that's secondary. I see self-destructive art more as activism than "flagellant religious behavior."

[Faust06]

Of course it's art.

Why should art be passive all the time?

[CoHo]

Art is supposed to spark emotion, thought or awareness... so yeah it's art

Are we loosing touch with violence because of television? I don't think as much as some people would imagine. Vietnam Veterans are fucked up individuals and the general population doesn't act that way.

[Dr. Haight]

Art is supposed to spark emotion, thought or awareness... so yeah it's art

Wow, I have never really considered myself art before... But I like that.

[EmmaPeel]

Art is supposed to spark emotion, thought or awareness... so yeah it's art

9-11 wasn't art, and it sparked emotion, thought and awareness.

[PenguinHunter]

9-11 wasn't art, and it sparked emotion, thought and awareness.

*hopes very strongly not to derail an excellent thread*

Does there have to intent to make art for art to be created? I think you could argue both sides on this one.

[kuranes]

Another interesting question - if this kind of art becomes more prevalant, it may gradually lose its ability to rivet attention or be as shocking, which is supposedly a crucial aspect of it. Will future self-destructive types then have to do irreparable harm to themselves to "make the grade" ?

Although not an exact parallel to the art of the OP - I sometimes wonder the same about certain types of "metal" music. Some music sounds extremely grating/raucous to the ears of many listeners, but it is this very "nails on chalkboard" ( and sometimes random ) quality to it that a notable portion of its fans count as part of its value/worth. How "obnoxious" will the metal of the future have to be in order to "make the grade" ? Or in punk music, will Sid Vicious be considered especially "tame" someday ? Will an old man someday nostalgically look at an old woman he recognizes from youth- as an aging juke plays "You make me vomit" and say "Hey, hon, they're playing our song. Remember this" ?

[PenguinHunter]

Another interesting question - if this kind of art becomes more prevalant, it may gradually lose its ability to rivet attention or be as shocking, which is supposedly a crucial aspect of it. Will future self-destructive types then have to do irreparable harm to themselves to "make the grade" ?

Interesting. Is it possible that it won't become prevalent because of the nature of the form? It may be that the very nature of this art is such that it can never be mass produced for mass audience creating mass desensitization towards it. (Would this make it the most "pure" form of art that a human can create?) There will never be enough people willing to intentionally harm themselves to cause this. (I think that at least the performance pieces would remain impossible to create on a large enough scale to cause desensitization - filmed and photographed works may be different because of the disconnection.)

On the other hand, to some extent the irreparable harm artist already exists though. "Artistic suicide" is a pretty common thing. I guess there is not normally violent torture involved though.

But then it makes me think of the popular ascetism when Christians were no longer being martyred through persecution (so they found other less exciting ways to try to become martyrs). Renouncing comfort to that extreme is not so dissimilar from inflicting pain directly. Which plugs back into Pan's comments on art as a religious statement. I wonder if the ascetic movements were ever popular enough in some little villages to make the regular villagers go "pah, there goes another one - this is so passe."

Fascinating stuff; I have to think about it all a bit more.

[kuranes]

PH - Yeah, I didn't mean it would ever be so prevalant that it would be considered a "mass produced" effort, but even if no additional practitioners were added to the ranks of the self-destructives, might not people say, "OHhh, yeah, that's that Pane lady again, doin' her thing, ummm-hmmm. I remember when she came around here last year cuttin' on herself".

* chuckles at the idea of it becoming a fad like . . . "piercing" . *

But wait . . . .

[distraction tactics]

Although not an exact parallel to the art of the OP - I sometimes wonder the same about certain types of "metal" music. Some music sounds extremely grating/raucous to the ears of many listeners, but it is this very "nails on chalkboard" ( and sometimes random ) quality to it that a notable portion of its fans count as part of its value/worth. How "obnoxious" will the metal of the future have to be in order to "make the grade" ? Or in punk music, will Sid Vicious be considered especially "tame" someday ? Will an old man someday nostalgically look at an old woman he recognizes from youth- as an aging juke plays "You make me vomit" and say "Hey, hon, they're playing our song. Remember this" ?

For metal, I have no idea where it will be in 20 years. I suspect a lot more of an atonal/dissonant electronic influence, as I really cannot see the present guitar-based stuff can evolve.

Punk goes in circles. 'Real punk' is so underground right now, I doubt offensiveness will be a major theme anytime in the near or near-distant future. There is a trend of 'joke' bands popping up who exist basically just to wreak havoc on stage. Major case-in-point: the band 'Bad Luck 13' who brought in severed pigs' heads to throw around at the last 'Hellfest' two years ago, as well as a ski-masked crew who ran around hitting kids in the crowd with flourescent lightbulbs. That particular show ended in a mini-riot, but everyone knew that from the first day on (such behaviour might explain why last year's Hellfest was cancelled, and why there isn't one planned for this year).

On a semi-related note, 'Dillinger Escape Plan' basically trashes venues during their set (windows, ceiling insulation, lights, etc.), and pays the damages from their $3000-some guarentee.

This, of course, isn't prevalent in the scene. Kids will tolerate it in a handful of acts, but even then it's a contentious issue. Surprisingly, at least in the hardcore scene, many kids will mete out justice to bands in the form of an ass-kicking (attn: FSU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_Stand_United)) if they've gone too far.

[CoHo]

9-11 wasn't art, and it sparked emotion, thought and awareness.

It can be to some people. Art isn't like a fruit, you can't spot one on a tree and point to it.

If you say "This isn't art to me." then you would be correct. If you say "This isn't art." then you are assuming too much.

[Faust06]

I suspect a lot more of an atonal/dissonant electronic influence, as I really cannot see the present guitar-based stuff can evolve.


Technical metal is at it's peak right now, and brutal death metal is dying in my eyes. There are a number of "mathcore" bands emerging, which are basically Meshuggah-influenced polyrhythmic hardcore bands... but I suspect that wont go on for much longer. Canadian band Ion Dissonance created the craziest most dissonant obnoxious album ever... borderline grind... and even if anyone does top it, I don't see the point.

I think pure heavy metal, in the future, will be a cult thing. Unless of course it goes mainstream again. The supposedly punk bands these days like Avenged Sevenfold are showing alot of Iron Maiden influence.

[blooper156]

I have recently begun researching Gina Pane and would be very interested in hearing what it is you think about her Performance Art. Also if you know any useful books or websites etc... on this subject that would be very useful too. Sorry to be annoying and ask this but you do sound as if you might know.

[blooper156]

9-11 wasn't art, and it sparked emotion, thought and awareness.

Actually some people have observed the fact that it was very much intended as a ritualistic performance, intended so that we would have the cameras rolling for the second plane to hit the towers.

The dramatic is a performance. Performance is considered art regardless of what it is, and however real it may be. If you know Artaud at all then you'll know about the idea of Theatre being a Life experience, and that performance ought to use ritual as part of it. Don't hold any boundaries as to what art can be. Anything can be art whether intended or not. Art is in the eye of the beholder. Art is anything which can be critisided/critically analysed...essentially.

[MuseedesBeauxArts]

I have recently begun researching Gina Pane and would be very interested in hearing what it is you think about her Performance Art. Also if you know any useful books or websites etc... on this subject that would be very useful too. Sorry to be annoying and ask this but you do sound as if you might know.

Are you asking me? I'm just a dabbler, so probably not the person to ask. Besides, the reasonable websites I know of are already linked. I don't have any art sites marked on this computer, and the only textbooks I have around here are medical.

Soooo....I recommend Google. Or the art section in your local Barnes & Noble. Good luck.