A Resource for Performing Artists, Scholars and Audiences.
How do you define Contemporary Performance
Here at the blog and network we have defined it as
"The term Contemporary Performance is used to describe hybrid performance works and artists that travel between the fields of Experimental Theatre & Dance, Video Art, Visual Art, Music Composition and Performance Art without adhering to one specific field’s practice."
We found another definition at the Lost Notebook blog.
“Contemporary performance is hybrid work that integrates text, dance, objects, music, costumes, lighting, image, sound, sets, and vocal expression into complex interactive systems. Contemporary performance names a body of work that builds on an aesthetic history beginning in the 1880s with Alfred Jarry and early Dada experiments and unfolds through into the American avant-garde and Performance Art of the 1980s. Contemporary performance collages are often non-narrative, technically rigorous, and carefully orchestrated anarchic chaos. They unsettle perception, demand critical engagement from audiences, address conceptual debates within aesthetics, draw on a diverse range of cultural interests, and bring pleasure to populations across the globe.” - Morgan v. P. Pecelli at lostnotebook.com
Do you know of other definitions. How would you define the field?
Something I have often wondered about. Sometimes I “stage” works without the need to have an audience, yet something about the word ‘performance’ suggests that to perform is to have an audience.
My tutor once said to me that there is a huge difference between theatre and performance art, and although he has been greatly influential
to my studies, I sometimes wonder why he bothered to say that. If you are
restricted by rules and lines between “genres” of art, you cannot be freely
creative. In this sense, I can agree with what Robert is saying. Contemporary performance is what it is, when it wants to be what it is.
For the record, I prefer the network’s definition.
- I like definitions, generally. Life is disorganised. It's nice to define... Define it, then outdo it.
i have to say, i was honestly surprised by the »pretty strict« definition of p.a. by Grace Exhibition Space in their call for artists posted earlier today. a feeling of unease about that strictness got me to thinking whether a necessity to narrow down the field is being experienced (openness as threat??), as G.E.S. indicates by pointing out that there are already many (enough?) venues committed to dance, etc.
i sympathize with roberts comment. and i esp. like emma's addition »when it wants to be what it is«, or maybe even »what it wants to be«?
my initial impulse was to reply with practices and non-practices that unsettle boundaries which, in a way, unsettles the sheer attempt to define itself, if you think about it, in an exquisite way. very open, of course, maybe too open and not useful at all, but then again, »being useful« and »closed« might turn out to reveal yet another two boundaries contemporary performance is questioning.
we could, however, look at the act of definition as an open, ongoing, ever failing process, rendering every supposed, claimed final definition a failure of failure.
i agree, that we always need/can have more venues!
maybe there is an underlying, diverging understanding of performance art and performing arts?
just a thought..
For me, with a point of view of Art history, peformance, beyond any asethetic, was an
attempt to approach real life to art, a strong critic to arts institutions, society and to
the traditional concept of representation.
Today, i feel, i see the "aesthetic" of performance, but the content and background is different.
Performance, to me, is closer to life and politics, than to the realm of arts institutions.
I'm in the "defies definition" camp. Of the two above, the CP definition sits most comfortably for me, as it's all true as far as it goes, but then performance, in practice, takes it farther.