You are on page 1of 12
pte 9 he past, now ta he su rn the ein of aca.) ac hs eit the The sculpt, chen, eis ees nan arene faut of > ue \—making soy ara ssc wou se, cps dif tegen we lo a ge co be expences hc be PE Ht og cough be ken war coor hele might ci © NE ca huh he cans igh eh sa Ba one ge cna mot serie of Sse oie The seul es sien i can jIptor who imports video into: his/her object instal Ms Dea s ed big oda,» Peon bare sos hard ¢0 the pase Devg Hall ¢ Sally do Fifer, Eds. [Iomiiahts Wdeo. An Essential Coe Video Ae Chm) York + Sin Farcisto’. Apecture aad bay Arex Coalition, 1946) Performance, Video, and Trouble in the Home KATHY O°DELL ‘television prodcer recently sid co mé tha he thought The Honeymooners was the it video are piece ever ade. Ini, the comment stuck me as glib But every time I came back to the’prescribed content of this essay—early sev- ‘enties “performance-based video" and its relations to sixties petformance att— along came thi silly comment, begging fr attention. Images of Alice, Ralph, “Trixie, and Norton flooded my mind: Ralph trying to protect his home fom armed inraders by bormbatclly banishing » water pistols Norton teaching Ralph to dace 10 that Alice woulda’ be atracced ro the young, single dance instructor who had just moved into che building; Ralph loudly admonshing Alice for never “standing behind him” on his harebrained schemes and Alice ily responding, “Td love to, Ralph, but there's not much oom buck there” While these memories were plestrabl, 1 was hardy convinced they con stituted the ancestral roots of video art and farthermore, my mission was noe to enter into genealogical hunt. Then something struck me about Tbe How seonr—a certain sore of “rouble in the home," the sre that was of interese £0 mein the work I was exploring. The «rouble inthe Keamdens home was ‘hac they rarely leet and thi was the paadoxial crux ofthe series ale though they called themselves the “honeymooners,” we never saw them on their honeymoon and whenever they tied to take a vacation (eh eguialen of 4 second honeymoon), the cir would break down, Ralph would ge hooked ino a shady rel esate deal on «summer cabin, and so forth, Typical of Bis television agendas, we were meant ro believe tha the Kramdens were on an exer honeymoon in thee mariage, stabilized in and by the home ste, which doubled as a holiday site.’ Atypical, however, was that this holiday was 10 picnic. With Ralph reveree-stereotyped a5 “female” hysterc and Alice ss “male” rationalist, trouble was constantly brewing. Now, this revered steeo- ‘yping, which could be 10 easily reteversed, did noe represent any ret stride forward inthe history of male-female social relations, but inthe context of the 1950, he it thatthe nocon of gender could be reconstructed ae all was seal, siguifcan ep. Iam more incrested, however, in the subtler paychohiso implica ‘ions of The Honeymooners, Firs, since the home was shown as the site of gen= der’s nconstruction, i¢ was suggested that the home is also the site of its origi- ‘nal consteuction—a process shown to be problematic by the Kramdens’ desire to reverse it. Second, since it was evidene that this thing called celevision was mediating our own subjective positions in the home from which we watched 135 136 never footed us into thinking we were looking ither the Kramdens nor the Noreons had kids), ted, thac ic is constructed cheough Ralph's weighty presence cal denifcaions ae formes fh che diference-forming tendencies of repre- ed visual attention co the xd-—the human sencation. And thi Tocus of psychological work from which boy. “rhe body, the paychogined drama i which is represenatons a Pe evel ual he insittions (often homelike andlor holdalike) which fame ed ematons ae he ues scsi hi sty Evoke in oe so ip ch elesion sows a Th Homma, dae ies ei) Ne 1 gros in lcd medi ike perfomance and vile, The Dy s- 8s ut macera f these ar forms, brought up cas @ viewer eR seg way aggressively fo ei pce, "Tate's it uc om A ra ee sad, bue what apace cere ir—Behind and around che refor> ing boxy —is far fom never "The institutions in which perfor carly 1pvon ranging from galleries c0 school fr 9 cn aare spacer were heavily coded with paychological familias sae rontrce ofthe family. Mikhail Baka, inhi heorzaons en roe wreange on sntcneh-century carnival, has sugested chat he mode aor c the sincent-cenury opposition berwen the sae (8 Powe?) arava ts mixed-up power isthe opposition between bome and hol- soy.) For arguments ike, shall consider the space of the galley» Wit stunning 8 rateroal oF paca fire, co be comparable to te a es altenative spaces a comparable x0 the body sack and Pro, aor ne spaces an choos, i which ce bulk of exly seventies works «oo, Mine an carious mix of eh ewo, The peformancebaed widens of Ve 6) ae an Grane, Joan Jonas, and oxers cc on all ee sues mentioned sr ving to question ee stability of ee nsiucon in which ce a ene eink Grose and the iscction coward which de viewers ascension wees directed, Was there, afterall, “trouble in ehe home”? mance and video were presented in the rocovaleernative spaces €© rovating iece from the eatly 1978 more thoroughly spells out formance-baved video than Ac- ac the end of 2 Tong threatening «0 swing at Pethaps no other pi the paychologized drama engendered by pet conats Claim (1971). Blindfolded, sated io 2 basement fight of stars, armed with mecal pipes and crowbar, de near, Acconci simultaacousy invited and prohibited ‘Grand Sireet loft to descend into che world ofthe une spoke repeciiously, spoke in excess Til keep anyone from com- anyone who tied (0 every vsior co the 93 Conscious. As he spoke without ceasing, (CT don't want anybody dows here with me. ing down the sears Rep anyone cae fom coming down hte wit fe hep enced the move fm wee Lean the “imagine “amine er, wg gi sees thd of ean by which she aes ey se Seng fed sna gil can wth he mor ssa pu) Th spony in Pan mag

You might also like