Is the performance exhibited in gallery similarly to masterpieces still real performance act? I saw yesterday very interesting and touching documentary about untypical exhibition in Museum of...
I saw yesterday very interesting and touching documentary about untypical exhibition in Museum of Modern Art.
Basically, MoMA presented a retrospective of installations, sound pieces and performances of Marina Abramović. All her early arts were presented (reconstructed) by young artists during 3 months day by day performance.
Do you think that performance (or any other art activity based on improvisation) can be repeated in the gallery with the same effect like original?
Is performance, which by definition is something unique, elusive and depending on original place and audience, the same piece of art when act by someone else in different circumstances?
This is an interesting question. I don't know that there is a way to discern a definitive answer. Every performance will be slightly different, but does that make one rendition substantively different than another?
I am going to say, for sake of conversation, that each performance will be similar enough to be considered equal (as long as improvisation does not figure into the performance).
This question makes me think of another kind of performance art - plays/theater. I'd say, generally, that one theater group's performance of Macbeth can be much better than another. But theater is intepretive in ways that the performance art of Abromavic is not...
I think that the benefit of performance art is that it is an experience. The experience will never be exactly the same every time, even with the same artist. That does not make it better or worse, just different.