'-1

PERFORMANCE

Critical Concepts in Literary

and Cultural Studies

Edited by Philip A uslander

Volume IV

I~ ~~o~~I;'~~':IIf'

I ONnON ANIl N I W ye lI(~:

 CONTE NTS

VOLUME IV

ix
JI ck l1owledgcmenl-l'

!',\In 1
1
Idcntity and the self
Fir,l pllblished 2001

by Routlcdgc

2 Park Squarc, Milton I'ark, Abingdon, Oxon, OXI4 4RN

/. / n1(~ pClforming sel/
Simllltancollsly publishcd in lhe USA and Canada

by Routlcdgc
3
M~ The performing self

270 Madison Ave, Ncw York NY 10016

IUCIIA RD POIR1 ER

RoUlledge is all imprin/ o//he Tay/or & f'í-Imcis Grollp

Transfcrrcd to Digital I'rinting 2009 ()9 Presenting and re-presenting the self: from not-actiog
22
Edilorial matler and selection ~) 2003 Philip i\uslandcr: individu,iI to acting in African performance

olVners rclain copyright in lheir o\Vn material

I'RANCES IIARD1NG

Typcscl in Times by Graphieraft Limitcd. Ilong Kong

A/l rights rcscrvcd. No part 01' lhis book Illay he reprinled or
reprodllccd or uliliscd in any forl11 nr by uny e!cclronü.:.
/.2 l'erjórming idenlily
nlcchanical , 01' other means. now knOWH or hcrearter
inventcd. induding photocopying and recording. or in any 42
inrormation storagc or rctricval syslem , withoul pcrmission in 711 Ooiug difference
writing from the publishcrs. CAND AC L \VES... ANI) SU SA N FE N STLRMAKL R

Bri/ish Lihrury Ca/a/oguing il1 Puh/ica/ioll J)a/a 74

¡\ catalogue record for this book is availablc frol1l ¡he Britis h Libnlry 71 Prologue: pcrforming blackness

U/mil}' or COl1gress Ca/(¡/ogin[: il1 PlIhlim/;ol1 J)a/a KIMBERI.Y W . BHNSTON

A catalog record ror lhis hook has becn n:qucsted

72 Pcrl'ormativc acts and gender constitution:

97
ISBN 0-415 -25511-2 (Set)
llll cssa)' in phenomeoology aod I'cmioist thcory

ISBN 0-415-25 5 15-5 (Vol lime IV)

.J UDlIII 1IlI I'I. ER

PubJish~r'~ Nlllc
111
Rcfcn:nec within ea eh cha pter are as th ev ;!J'pcar ill thc
7:\ Churco~raphics nr ~clldcr
ori¡'.in;iI l'Olllplctl' work
Sll SAN 11'1\;\1 l'OS Il H

v
 CU N 1'1, 1'1 l S
('O NTl i N TS
323
X4 "The eye l'inds no tixcd poin! on which to rest ..."
74 Pcrforming lesbian in the spllce of technology: part 1 14]
C IIA N rA L PON TBllIA ND
SUE-EL LI ~N C ASE
332
X5 l.istening to music: pcrformances and rccormngs
TIIEODORE GR ACY K
IJART 2
Visual art and performance art 163
.l..? Pel/ór/11ll/lCe a/'ld lech/1.% gy
2./ Visual i,l/'l 351
X6 Negotiating presence: performance aud neWtechnologies
ANDRE W MlJRf'I-IIE
75 Art and objecthood 165
365
MIC II AIl L FR I ED X7 Tlle art of puppetry in the age of media productioD
STEYE T1LLlS
76 The ob.iect of performance: aesthetics in the seventies 188
I lJi NR y SA YI{E XX The screen test of tlle double: thc uncanny performer in
381
the space of tcchnology
2.2 Pel.!ór/11al1ce arl MA 'I I' IIEW CAU SllY

X9 Thc art of interaction: intcractivity , performativity,

77 Performance and theatricaJi ty: the subject demystified 206 395
and computers
JOSETTE FÉ! R AL
DAVID '!.. SAL'!''!,
78 British live art 218 41 1
NICK KA YE lndex
79 Performance art and ritual: bomes in performance 228
ERIKA FIS C lI ER-Ll C HT E

80 Women's performance art: feminism and postmoderuism 251

JE A NIE FORTE

81 Negotiating deviance and normativity: performance art,

boundary transgressions, and social change 269
BRITTA B. W IIJ.i EL W~

IJART 3
Media and technology 289

3. / Media lll/d m ediatizaÚol7

82 Fílm and theatre 291

::;U SA N SO NT¡\li

8] Thc prc."cncc of mc.'tIialion 306

\(0( ;/' 1( ( '()I' I· L,\N U

VII
vi
 ACKN OW LEDGEMENT S

TIJe Publishers would like to thank tbe fol1 o wing for permission to reprint
lhcir material:

Oxford University Press for permission to reprint Richard Poirier, "The

pcrfor1l1ing self", in TITe Perf{mning Scfl ( New Yo rk: O xford University
Press, 1971), pp. 86- 111.

The Massachusetts Institute of Teehnology Press for permission to reprint

Frailees Harding, "Presenting éln d re-presenting the sel!': from not-acting to
acting in Afriean performance" , Ti) R: 111C Jou/"I1af o/ Per/ormuncc SIl/di('\"
13(2) (1999): 11 8-135. © 1999 New York University and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Press.

Sage Publications for permlsslon to reprint Candaee West and Susan

Fenstermaker, " Doing difference", Gender (f/1{1 So!:ielv 9(1) (1995): 837.
f) 1995 by Sociologists for Women in Society.

Taylor & Francis Ltd for permission to reprint KimbeTly W . Benston, " Pro­
logue: perfor1l1ing blackness", in Pel,!órming B!ackncss: Enaclmenls o/Af/-ican­
American Modernisl1l (London : Routledge, 20(0), pp. 1- 21 . © 2000 Kimberly
W. Benston.

The Johns Hopkins University Press for permission to reprint .Judith Butler,
"'Perfor1l1ative acts and gender eonstitution: an essay in phenomenology and
fClllinist theory", Thealre Journal 40(4) (1988): 519- 5 31. © 1989 by The
.Johns Ilopkins University Press.

The University of Chieago Press ror permlSSlon to reprint Susan Leigh

Foster, '"Choreographics 01' gendcr" , ~'';¡gl1s 24( 1) (1998): 1- 34, © 1998 by The
1!niversity of Chieago .
1I 1

,1
T lle Johns I-Iopkin s Universil y Press rO l' pcrl1l ission to reprint Suc-El1en
( 'ase, " Pcri órm ing Icshian in lhe spal.!c ur I c~ lirlll ln gy : Part 1" , Thmlrc .!ollrnaf
'-17( 1) ( I'N'; ); 1 IX, (,'1 1\)\)5 hy l he JIl1lllS Il llpk ins 1! ni vcrsi ly Press.

1\
 ¡\ (' K NOW 1. 1':1)(; r M EN TS
I\('K NOW LLlHil,M l'N TS

The Massachusclts Institute of T echnology Press for permission to reprint

ArrForul// ror pennission to reprint Michael F ried , ";\rt and objecthood " ,
Steve Tillis, "The art of puppetry in the agc 01' media production", TD R : T he
ArtForum 5(10) (1967): 12- n.
.Iol//"/wl uf Per/"ormance Sil/dies 43(3) (1999): 182- 19 5. © 1999 New Yo rk
T he autbor and The University of Geo rgia for perrnissio n to reprint Henry ti nivcrsity and the M assachusetts Institule of Teclmology.
Sayrc, "The object 01' performance: aesthetics in the seventies" , The Georgiü
The .Iohns Hopki.ns University Press for permission to reprint Matthew
Re view 37(1) (1983): 169- 188. © 1983 by The University of Georgia.
('ausey , "Screen test of the double: the uncanny performer in the space of
Mo dern Drama for permission tl) reprint Josette Féral, " Performance and tcchnology" , Thealre ] ourna! 51(4) (1999): 383-:194. © 1999 by Thc Johns
theatricality: the subject demystified ", translated by Terese Lyons, M odern Ilopkins Universi ty Press.
Drama 25( 1) (1982): 171 - 181.
Blackwell Publi shers for permission to re print David Z. Saltz, " T he aft of
Taylor & Francis L td (www .tandf.co.uk) for pennissi on to reprin l Nick interaction: interactivity, performativity, a nd computers" , The Journa! o/
Ka ye, "B ritish Jive art" ["Live Art: D efiniti on & Documenta.tion"], Conlem­ /lesrhetics and A rt Criticism 5(2) (1997): 117- 127. © 1997 T be America n
porary Thell tre Re view 2(2) (1994): 1--7. Society for Aesthetics.
Cambridge Univer sity Press for permission lo reprint Erika fischer-Lich te,
"Performance art and rit ua l: bodies in performance", Thea lre Resmrch I nler­ Disclaimer
l1ariol1ul 22(1) (1997): 22·-37. © 199 7 International Federation for Theatre
Rescarch , published by Cambridge University Press. The publishers have made every effort to contact autllOrs/copyright holders
01' works reprinled in Per{ormante: Critica! COl1cepls in Lilerary and Cultural
The Johns H opkins University Press for pcrmission lo reprint Jeanie Forte, ,.. '. ruclies. This has not been possible in every case. however, and we would
"Women 's performance art: feminism and postmodern ism", Thealre Journal we1come correspondence from those individuals/companies who we have
40(2) (1988): 217--235. «J 1988 by the John s Hopkin s University Press.
bl:en unabJc to trace .
Canadian Scholars Prcss ror permissioll to reprint Britta .B. W heeler, "Nego­
tiating deviance and normati vity: perfomlance art, boundary transgressions, Note
and social change", in Marilyn Corsianos and Kelly Amanda Train (eds),
Inrerrogatillg Social Juslice: Po!iúcs, Culture, anc! !dentity . (Toronto: Cana­ Photographs induded in the original books I articles have not been reprinted
dian Scholars' Press , 1999), pp . 155- 179. © 1999, the editor and contributors. I1cre.
T he f)ram a Rel'ieH' for permission to reprint Susan Sontag, " Film and thea­
tre " , The Drama ReJ'iew 11(1) (1 966): 24 ~ 37 . © 1966 Th e Drama Review .
Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology Press for permission to reprint Roger
Co peland, "The presenee of mediation '" Tf)R: The Journal of Per/órmance
S rudies 34 (1990): 28 ~ 44.~) 1990 New York University ami lhe Massachu­
setts Lnstitute of Technology .
Moc!ern f)rama ror permission lo reprint Chanta J Pon tbria nd , "T he eye finds
no fixed poin t on which to rest . . .", translated by C. R. P arsons, Modan
f)rama 25( 1) (1982): 154 - 162.
Blackwell Publishers for permission to reprint Theodore G racyk , "Listening
to music: performanees a nd reeordings", The Journal qf Aeslhelics Clnd Ar!
Crilicism 55(2) ( 1997): 139- 151. © 1997 T he American Sociely for Aestheties.
Luton University ror pennission lo reprint ;\nd rew Murphie, "Negotiating
prescn cc: perfo rma nce ¡,¡nd ncw lcdlllo logic~ ", in Ph ili p Ilaywa rJ (ed.), Cu/­
rl/r('. "[á/molo.'!,\' ,,~ ('/'I'a ¡¡" llirl'. ( LonJ~IO ' John Lihh"y, 1'.1990 ), pp. 209 226.
1/" )\)1)0 Jol1 11 Ubl1l'v IIIU.I ( 'tllllPOl IlY I tJ .

\1
,....
U
m
Z
~
~

~
> ~
Z -.
~

tj .........

~
:c
m
(/).
t"I1
r"Tj
I I I J/(' /'/'/:!iJl III/I/g Sc(!

68

THE PERFORMING SELF

Richard Poirier

S""l n~: Richard Poiricr. Tlle Pe~/ormillg Selj; Ncw Yo rk: O x:fo rd Univcrsily Prcss. 1971 ,
pp . X(, 11 '1.

111 illustrating what I mean by " the performing self " 1'11 be coneerncd m ostly
with Robert Frost, Norman Mailer, and Henry James. I could almos! as
prolitably consider the se\f as performance in Byron, in Yeats, or in Law­
Il'lICC, and 1'11 have something to say about Andrew Marvell as well as
Thoreau . So that I'm less sure of the signifieance of all three 01' my principal
illustrations bcing American than of the faet that each of them is of an
l::\trcme if different kind 01' arrogance. Whether it be confronting a page of
Ihcir own writing, an historieal phenomenon like the assassination of Robert
Kcnnedy. a meeting with Khrushcbev, or the massive power of New York
( 'ity - all three treat any occasion as a "scene" or a stage for drama tizing the
sdt' as a performer. I can ' t imagine a scene of whatever terror or pathos in
which they would not at every step in their accouot of it be watching and
1l1casuring their moment by moment participation. And their participation
would be measured by powers of rendition rather than by efforts of under­
standing: since the event doesn't exist except in the shape they give it, what
dse should they be anxious about? I t's performance that matters pacing,
ccnnomies, juxtapositions, aggregations of tone, the wholc condllct of the
shaping presence. Ir this sounds rather more brutal than we imagine writers
or artists to be, then that is becallse performance partakes 01' brutality. As
hlwin Denby points out, dancing on points is an extraordinarily brutal - he
uscs the word savage- business, regardless of the communicated effect of
gracc and beauty. We can \carn a great deal "bout art by telling the dancer
frorn the dance. Dancers thcmselves do; and \vriten, are always more anxious
Ihan are their critics to distinguish between writing as an act and the book
nI' pllem .
Indccd . <.: al:h 01' the thn!t! writl.:r'i 1' 11 he Illostly disclIssing admits with
unus ual candor Iha ! what cxciu:s him 11IW)I ill a wo rk i:; fina lly himscl f as a
p Ul Ihrl1\CI'. Pe rform allce is un cxcn.. ise ,,1 p llWl.' f a vc ry curiDllS Dile. C uriollS
 II)LNTI T Y ANO l i l E S U , I·
be¡;ausc it is at (irst so furi ously self-wnsultivc. so even na rcissistic, and later
so eager for publicity, lo ve . and historical dimension oOut of an accumulation
of secretive acts emerges at last a form that presumes to compete with reality
itsell' fo r con trol of the minds exposed to it. Perform ance in writing, in
painting, o r in dam:e is made up 01' thousands of ti ny movcments, ea eh m ade
with a calculation that is also its in nocence. By inn ocence 1 mean th a t the
movements have an utterly mor al neu trality- they a re designed to serve one
an other and nothing else; and they are innoccnt, too , beca use contrived with
only a vague general notion of what they migh t ultima tely be responsible
for- the fina l thing . the acculllulation called " the work. " "The bridge span s
the stream," as Henry James puts it , " after th e facl, in a pparently complete
indepcndence of these properties, the prin¡;ipal grace 01' the original design o
They were an illusion, for the necessary hour; but the span itself. whetber o f
él si ngle arc h or of many. seems by the oddest cha nce in the world to be a
rcality: since actually the rueful b uilder, passing under it , sees figures and
hears sounds aboye: he makes out, with his heart in his throat, that it bcars
a nd is posit ively being ' used. '"
Ir James wants to believe that "they"- the original design and the a¡;ts of
the builder prompted by it- prove in the end to have been an "illusio n" when
measured against the reality of th e fi nishcd structure. then it has to be said
that his Prel'aces are given almost wholly to an a¡;count of such "illusions. "
Perhaps it would be better to say that their relationship is a dialecti¡;al one,
that thcre exists a perpetua lly tensed antagonism bet\veen acts of local per­
formance. carried out in private delight and secretive plotting, amI those acts
of presentation when the author, spruce, snúJing. now a public man, gives the
finished work to the world. The gap bctween the completed work, which is
supposed to constitute the writer's vision, amI the multiple acts of perform­
ance that \Vent into it is an image of the gap between the artist's self as he
discovered it in performance amI the self, altogether less grimy, discovered
afterward in the final shapc and the world's recep tion of it. The question ,
responded to quite differently by the writers ['11 be looking at, is sill1ply this :
which kind o f power- of performance or of the contemplatable visions that
can be deduccd from their end results- is the more illusory whcn it comes to
understanding a literary work? There is no answer to this q uestion. Rather.
it posits a condition within which any writer, and any ¡;ritic, finds hill1self
working. It is a question not ofbeliefin meanings but ofbeliefin one kind of
power and energy or another--one kind in the supposed act 01' doing, the
other in the supposed result.
Prost was as obsessed with power in its p ublic and in its private fo rms as
an y writer in thi s century. which is why he ke pt prelcnding he wasn ' t. It made
him resist, to the poin l 01' meélnness. Ihe weakcning pulls o f li beral h uman­
itarian isll1. In a Ictt er writlcn thrcc wl!eks a.fter Ronscvelt uefealcJ Lamlon in
19 1ó. he kcl:> compdlcu . by Ihe Il;¡t un: nI' a rCISIIII ;¡1 I,:nn!\;ss ion , lo assu re
l ,I uis lJn lcrmcycl. Ih nt " 1d OIl ' , lucan ill s h' "II;llIll y 1101 lo I ~d Ihe su/Tcring
Tillo I'I :RIIORM I N{i SE I I:
nI' others.·' and he tllen pro¡;eeds to talk about the c1ection and the metaphors
Ihat governed it: " 1 judge half the people that voted for his Rosiness were
Ihose glad to be on the receiving end of his benevolence and half were those
glaL! to be on the giving end. The national mood is humanitarianism. Nobly
so I \Vouldn't take it away from them. 1 am con tent to lel it go at one
philosophieal observation: isn 't it a poetical strangeness that whiIe the world
was going full blast for the Darwinian metaphors of evolution , survival
valucs and the Devil take tbe hindmost, a polemical Jew in exile \Vas working
up the metaphor of the State's being Jike a family to displace them [Darwin­
ian metaphors] from the mind and give us a new figure to live by? Marx had
Ihe strength not to be overawed by the metaphor in vogue . ... We are all
loadies to the fashion a ble metaphor of the hour. Great is he who imposes
Ihe metaphor. "
Over against any such conviction about the historical reverberations of
"working up the metaphor" has to be placeo F rost's own disavowals of any
dcsire to be thought a poet of Western civilization . "EJiot and I ha ve our
similarities and our differences ," he once wrote. "We are both poets and we
hlHh like to play. T hat's the similarity. The difference is this: I like to pl ay
cllchre. He likes to play Eucharist." When he talks about "wo rking up the
I11ctaphor" in his own poetry, he seldom betrays any fantasies about the
cllects of such work upon the direction 01' civiliza tion or even upon the con­
seiousness 01' his own times. lf poetry is an act of powe r for h im. then it 's of a
power that daims a smaller sphere of inftuence than th at c1aimed by Yeats
or Lawrence or James, the manipulator of continents. or Mailer, whose body,
one gathers, is the body politic of America. "1 look upon a poem as a
performance," Frost avows in the Puris Review interview. " (look on the poet
as aman of prowess" but he then adds a clarification which is also a brake
on sclf-aggrandizement- "just like an athlete."
Not surprisingly, and with wnsequences for his poetry that I'I1 return to ,
h'ost speaks of this prowess in ways as nearly sex ual as athletic and that
insist. in their freedom from metaphysical cant, on a difference crucial to my
argul11ent: a difference between the mood or meaning that may be generated
by the themc of a poem. on the one hand , an d , on the other, tlle efl'ect 01' the
cncrgies expended by the writer in his acts 01' performance. 1n the sa llle
intcrview, he talks about the first poem he ever wrote and then , more gener­
a!!y, ahoLlt wriling poetry:
" ... 1 was walking home from school and 1 began to make it~~a March
day and I was Illaking it all afternoon and making it so 1 was late at my
~ra!lJl11olher's fo r dinner. 1 finished it. but it burned right up, just burned
I¡glll 111'. yOll kllow . Ane! what stml cu lhat? What burned it? So many talk, 1
W\lIH.lcr how fa lscly, a bou l wllal il Cl)~ls 111l:1\l . what agony it is to write. ¡'ve
Ilnen b l!Cll quolcJ 'Nll lea n; in Ihc wri tc r \l O Icars in lhe reader. No surprise
rl)r lile wlitCI . 11\) surpris0 r\lr Ihc 1ca d...·I But allolllcr u istinction r make is:
I l owcvl.! r sad. 110 )'.1il!v allcc . ~.. kf \\Ii l 1111 11 1 " 1il·Vil ll...·C Il nw cl) lIld 1, how could
 Il> h Nl'l t ' AN I I 't' rll su " ,
anyone have a good time with what it cost mc tun 1Tl1lch agony, how could
thcy? W hat do I want to communicate but what a he/! 01' a good time I had
writing it? T he whole thing is performance and prowess and feats 01' associ­
ation . Why don 't critics talk about those things- what a feat it was to turn
that that way, and what a reat it was to remember that. to be reminded or lha t
by this? Why don ' t they talk about that? Sco ring. You've got to SCo re. T hey
say not but you 've got to score, in all the rea lms- theology, politics, astro­
nomy, history and the co untry Jife around yo u."
In his list of " realms" wherein poetic " prowess" or "scoring" is exercised ,
there is cOIl SpicUOllsly a division rather than any confusi o n among them, and
this self-restraining kind of discrimination extends even to a di visio n between
the etTect ofthe poem a nd the efTect ofw riting it. IJ t he poem expresses grief,
it also expresses- as an ac[ , as a co mposition. a performa nce, a " mak ing."­
the opposite 01' grier; it shows or expresses "what a he!! of a good time I liad
writing it." This is a difficult distinction for /110s t critics to grasp, appare ntl y.
It is what Yeats means when he says that "Tlamlet a nd Lear are gay"- " Ir
worthy their prominent pan in the play, " H arnlet ami Lear, either on the
t heatrical stage or the historical one, "do not break up their line~ to weep, "
F rost would not have needed Yeats since he had Emerson, who could write in
"The Poet" that "a n irnaginative book renders us rnuch more service at first,
by stimulating us through its tropes, than afterwards when we arrive a t the
precise sense 01' the autho!". " This is the sarne Emerson whose co mments on
human suffering were sometirnes tougher than anything even F rost could
sayo Ernersonian idealizations ofhuman power and energy in action , like any
fascination for the purity 01' human performa nce, tend to toughen artists
far more, 1 suspect, than we'd like to believe. " People grieve and bem oan
themselves," he writes in "Experience," "but it is not halfso bad with lhem as
th ey sayo There are rnoods in which we court suffering, in the hope that here
at least we shall find reality , sharp peaks and edges oftruth. But it turns out
to be scenepainting and counterfeit. The only thing grief has taught me is to
know how shallo\V it is. That , like all the rest, plays about the surface, and
never introduces me into the reality, for contact with which we \Vould even
pay the costly price 01" sons and lovers ."
I\n equivalent toughness, along with some of Eme rson's faith in huma n
enterprise, informs a letter from Frost to an obscure American poet named
Kirnball Flaccus. A n indifference, even a disdain for any preoccupation with
social conditions, co-exists in the letter with a concern for the pri macy 01'
personal perforrnance. It is significant that Frost at the same time recognizes
that nothing he can do as a " perfolmer" can have much relevaoce to th e
shapc 01' society. His seeming callous ness, like Jamcs's persistent relish for the
" pi ct uresque" (orten mea nin g h uma n misery unde r gla-;s). is in parto at least,
der ived fro m a feeling abo ut the essc ntial irn: lcvancc or litcrature lo the
mO Vl:lllenls 01" uaily li fe , ll1Ul.: h k ss those 01' Iil l'}''': :;l)l'i :t1 lll'gil lJislIlS. Wh ic h
la kes me lúr a mOf1ll: nlln a Iil o re llellera l rOill l. llill ll l'l 'y 111:11 li ll!rary tl::Ich t!rs
1,
,i ll': I'I: R H )H.MINCl SEII '
:lnd cntlcs sh ou ld stop flatteri ng the illlportance 01' th eir occu pations by
hreast beating about the fact that literature and th e hUlllan ities did not
sOlllehow prevent, say, The Bomb or the gas chambers. They had nothing to
do with either one, shouldn't have, couldn't have, a nd the notion that they
did, has been prompted only by self-serving d rea llls 01' the power of literature
or of being a literary critic: the drea m of the teacher who g radually confuses
Iris trap ped audienee of students with the general public. The value of a leHer
like Frost 's is that jt helps clea nse us of pretensions ami vulgarities abo ut the
political power 01' litera tu re, eveo whilc affirming the personal power that can
be locked into it.
"My dear Flaccus: The book has come and I ha ve read you r poems first.
They are good. They have loveliness- they surely have that. They are carried
high. What you long for is in them . You wish the world better th a n it is, more
poetical. You are that kind of poet. 1 would rate as the other kind.1 wo uldn' t
givc a cent to see the world , the U nited Sta tes or even New York much better.
I want them left just as they are for me to ma ke poetical on papel'. I don 't ask
anything done to them that 1 d on't d o to them myself. I ' m a mere selfish artist
llIost orthe time. I have no quarrel with the matt;rial. The grief will be simply
ir I can't transmute it into poems. I don ' t want the world made sarel' for
poetry or easier. To hell withit. That is its own lookout. Let it stew in its o wn
materialismo No, not to hell with it. Let it hold its position while r do it in art.
My whole anxiety is ror myself as a performe.r. Am I any good? That's what
l'tI like to know and all 1 need to know."
Frost's distioction- between those poets who want to make the world
poetical and those like himself who are content to reform it only on papel'
-suggests why ht calls Marx a " polemical " and not a " poetical" Jew for
"working up the metaphor" that transformed the political life 01' the twen­
ticth century. As a poet, Frost comments on the "poetical strangeness" of
Marx not having been "overawed by the metaphol' in voglle," and this is , not
accidentall y, what Frost often felt about his own eareer. But the analogy
hetween Frost and Marx would hold in Frost's mind only for comparative
pcrformances, not at a ll ror comparative res lllts. You do no{ "score" in o ne
rl'alm by "scoring" in another, and the presumption that yOll do may mean
tlrat you truly " score" in none at all, as sorne 01" our currently distinguished
topical novelists \ViII eventllally discover. This tough self-knowlcdge makes
Frost watchful 01' himsclf as a performer in his poetry and wry about himself
as a sage for the world- as someone who can rest on the reslllLs 01' perform­
ance. Leavin g the world to stcw in its own materialism doesn ' t mean that he
won ' t use the world; it means that he sees no way it might use hirn . llenee, his
rdiccnce ami contempt, his playfulness about worldly wisdom or even other­
wllrldl y wj::¡Jo m.
In Iris sKcrt.icisrn ,tbOUI lhe pOWCI 01' lil crature and his delight in his
pn lWI!~S as .1 wrilCr. Fnl~ 1 rcrn':s\" l\ I:o. iI l'Ll lll plil:at ed aspl'ct 01' the sel f as a
Iwrl'p nll l: 1 wlt id l call be I'lII' lltL:1 1.:111\.' 1":11\·<1 hv ~'( 'nlp;¡ rin l! hilll with T horcau
 T 11 r " U H ' () [{ M 1 N {i SI', 1 l'
It> L N l 'I'I' y "N I> 1'1 11 ' SI' I ¡:

and with A ndrcw Ma rvdl aJld by t11cl1 contrasting all thrcc to a type differ­ Ihal il \Vas "not that 1 \Vantcd bcans to cal. for 1 am by nature a Pythagorean ,
ently illustratcd by Norman Mailer and I kmy Ja mes (1 take it as understood ',o far as beans are concerncd. but perchance, as some must work in field s if
ollly rOl" the sake of tropes and expression to serve a parable-maker one day. '·
that 1 am trying to describe insta nces of a problem rather than trying to write
Whcn he says a bi t later that " 1 sometimes make a day of it," he is character­
any kind of as yet recognizablc literary history .) Frost. Thoreau, Marvell ,
Mailer, James-a1\ of them are preoccupied with the possibl e conjunc tions I ~;lically punnin g in ravor of his role as poet and maker and Pllnning against
of ads of poetic with acts of public. sometimes even political power. But '1Hlillary idiom. familiarity \Vith which can threaten lhe vitalities he finds in
in MaiJer we have the case 01' a writer who rea lly beLieves that when he is la IIguage.
The punning of Thorcau a nd Marvell , who are, after Shakespeare and
" working up the metaphor" he is involved in an act of historical as well as o f
\)ll llne, perhaps the most seriously intentioned punslers in En gLish befo re
self-transfonnation. " 1 am imprisoned with a perceptioll ," he has told US,
II)yee, is a way of showing that the word s by which the world carries on its
"which wil\ settle fo r nothing less than making a revoluti on in the conseious­
w llsible business are loaded wi th a radical contento It is 'vvithin the subversivc
ness of our time," and it is ind ica ti ve of wh at I' m saying about him here th at
(lower of the poet to re1case that radical content. This is power of a sort, but
he is not " imprisoned in a perception ," for so a mere mortal would ordinaril y
1101 great, not the best kind perhaps even for a poet. lt wasn ' t his puns but his
put it, but "with " one, both lodged in a prison lhat must be as la rge as it is
Il'fusal to pay taxes that put Thoreau in jail. amI it wasn' t Marvell's poetry,
mysterious in its location. In his desi re to literaüze his own hyperboles,
III11S1 of it published only after his death . that gave him his position so much
Mailer is lcss a twen lieth-cenluly than a Renaissancecharacler, a Tamburlaine.
a Coriol a nus. even Milton's Satan. as his being for twenty years the M ember of Parlia ment for H uJ1 , and a rather
viulent politician. Ir Thoreau and Marvell satiri zc worldly power bcca uge it
As Thomas Edwards lucidly demonstrates in h is ncw book Imagina­
(.al1not control even the words by wh ich it tries to ma ke sense of itsel f, both
tion (lnd Power, all these figures have some d ifficulty distinguishing the
writers can be cqually satirie about Iiterary performances, ine1uding their
energy of their personal performance as shapers of a world in words from
OWI1. which pretend to give a controlling shape to that wo rld . They are wary
that energy we might call God, the difference being that God got there firs t
and is stabilized in forms called rcality, naturc, the world. To help distin­ uf lhe cxpansive " 1" who performs in their works, just as is F rost of the " he"
guish between Satanic performers, on lhe one ha nd, ami performers Iike \Vho. in "The Most o f It," asks the world to give him back a poem: "He wo uld
l'ry out on life, that what it wants/ Is not its own love back in copy speech,l
Frost, on the other, think of the matter of staging. For the one, all the world
Jlut counter-Iovc, original response. " What it gives back looks indiffcrent
is literally a stage ami all the men and women mercly players o r, if you're
(' lIough and sounds. as Frost describes it , lik c a retaliation: " As a great buck
a writer of this disposition, directors. Some critics are 01' this disposition ,
il powerfull y appearedJ Pushing the crumpled water up a head,l And la nded
too. speaking o f al\ things as flction s and thercby questioning the legit­
imacy of di sting uishing novels from history , as if history were eq ual\y ficti ve. pouring like a waterfall,l And stumbled throu gh the rocks with horny tread ,!
F or the other, the type of host, Thorcau , or Marvell , the world amI its And foreed the underbrush- élnd that was all. "
Thc world performs itself in its own terms ami metaphors. M arvcll discovers
people do not as often seem a specie 01' fiction; they seem , to use an old­
I his in one of the most remarkable passages or Iiterary criticislll in English
fashioned word , " real " . and even when they do seem no more than fiction s
lih:rature from one of thc most remarkabl y neglccted of its masterpieces.
then the fictions are of a different status than those endowed by literature or
.'I )pon Appleton House. " The poem is only incidentally a country house
by writers. At the very least Frost's kind of writer wants to make a distinction
Jlocm. celcbrating, but as often ma king fun of, the efforts of Lord rairfax to
between the stage which is the world and those other stagcs that take up some
huild él modcl "civilization" in retirement rather than , as he possibly mi ght
space on it , with cUI·tains amI covers, under the names of plays amI poems
have done , in the government of C romwell. The poem assertively rcfers to
amI novels.
"scencs" as the placcs where mcn perform the acts that mak e civilization.
Marvell is especially sophisticated abollt these matters. He announces
J'h\:se inclulk the pocm itselr as a "scene," with Marvell as poet and as
himself as an actor and scene-maker within a poem dcsigncd also to excite the
hllrlcsl(ucd fi gure of "easie philosopher. " His most self-exhilarating p\:rform­
envy of those actors trying to " ma ke it," in quite another sen se of lhe term , on
allce is as pastoral poeL a dan gcrously smug role to take , given the other
lhe stage orthe world . He seems to say to them: since you are looking for "the
hislmi ca l "sccnery" of the pOCIll . Marvcll moves from the ga rdcn. described
palm , the oak , or ba ys," unl ess of course I take you too litcralJy (or you take
as ir il werc a mil ita ry hasti on, a m.I Imm 11IIllcntations about the devastations
yo urselr loo Iitera ril y). come to lhe ga rden, whc re yOU Gél n fi nd a ll these and
rll" Givil \Va r. l(.l the g,rcal n1 11Winr SL'c nc. " " SCCIIC " is wh a t he insisls it is. a
mo re. "<ill fl()wcrs amI al l lr(!(!s. " 1'"1)(. <I n rl nal ugm ls pcrfünnance. lherc is
"sI;CI1C" whclc Iu.· pc rfnnl1s a~ a Jltl~'I :lllt1 IS ~'X p(lscJ fo \" doin g so hy lhose
Thorca u in his Americilll gankn, lhe bea" tidd . wllcn: '\.klc rmill cd 10 know
bca ns," a mi 1I1al"; nJ! :1 ¡m1l il which he 1.':111 1l~·lI li/~· 11 111 111 $8,7 11/ ,. 11(' ldl s liS olhcr clcll ll:nl s oC th¡; "'i~·c l lC" Wlll d l ~flll 11" \ ,dkd Ii k ;

'J
~
 IIHNIIT Y ANI) 1 111: S Il !. I'
1111 :' PE R JlORM IN Ci Sl d ¡:

No scene that tUnlS with engines strange

ill rctircmcnt. Neither the poem nor the performance is thereby deflected
Does oft'ner th a n these l11eadows chan ge:
t"rom the theatrical path on which they've been moving, however. Indeed,
For when the Sun the grass hath vexed ,
both have been all along satirica l o f their own procedures. even while these
The tawny mo wers en ter next :

llave managed to satiriz e sorne of the tra nsition a l aspects of contempor­

W ho setJl11 like Israelites to be

ary English lite and politics , Loss of poise is lhe least 01' lhe poet's worries
W alk ing on foot thJ'o ugh a green sea.

as he surveys the many other k inds of losses to E ngland and to civilizarion

T o thel11 th e grassy deeps div ide,

in the poem , amI besides he has already hedged hi s bets on T hestylis by

A nd crowd a la ne to either side.

suggesting tha t she was a " bloody" camp fo Ilower even before she turned o n
With whistling scythe and elbow strong,
him. With aristocratic good will he kno ws how io make the most of a
These l11assacre the grass along;
diminished thing.
W hile on e, unk no wing, carves the rail ,
Such a poet a s M arvell or F rost can be proud of his power as a performe r
Whose yet unfeathered qllills her fail.
beca use the "scene " of the poem is in fact far more precario us and ullstabil­
T he edge all bloody frol11 its breast
ized than is the " scene" which is the world . One cannot depend , as Marvell
Ile draws, and does his stroke de test;
discovers, even on li lerary convention to keep fie ld hands in their pastoral
Fearing the flesh llntimely mowed
places. In a way, perfonnances in poetry can prove no t that the world is too
To him a fate as black forbode.
tough for the performer but thal he is too tough for the world. The scene of
(he poem is more expanded and expansive than the scene which is the world,
But bloody Thestylis, that waits

and the poet's relationship to the scene 01' tibe poem is necessarily dynamic ,
To bring the mowing camp their cates.
exploratory, coolly exccuted to a degree that no comparable "scene" in lite
Greedy as kites has trllssed it up,

could very well bear. Frost's sonnets of1'e[ a coovenient illustration. Take
And forthwith l11eans on it to sup;

"Putting in the Seed":

When on another quick sbe Iights,

And cries, " He called us Tsraelites:"

You come to fetch me from my work to-night

But now to l11ake his saying true,

When supper's on the table , and \Ve 'l1 see

R a ils rain for quails , for manna dew.

If I can leave off burying the white

"1 Soft petals fallen from the apple tree
T he metaphor-making of the poet here is equivalent to the machinery for a (Soft petals, yes, but not so barren quite,
R ena issance masq ue referred to in the first line. The poet's language "changes"
Mingled \Vith thcse, smooth bean amI wrinkled pea,)
the meadow into sorne equivalent ofthe real sea that really did part, so we 've And go along with you ere you lose sight
been told, at the behest of a real (an d active) politicalleader, Moses; and the
Of \Vhat you carne ror and beeome like me,
poet's mctaphor-making tries also to change the mowers into " Israclites "
Slave to a springtime passion ror the earth.
after which he wi ll talk ofthis "scene withdrawing" to reveal the "table Rase"
H ow Love burns through the Putting in the Seed
for what he ca1Js other " pleasant Acts." The effect is of cocky play-acting, 011 through Lhe watching for tha! early birth
something Chaplinesque in the sad and zany \Vay the poet becomes so zealous
When, just as the soil tarnishes with weed,
in his " working up the metaphor" that he burlesques his own stylishness,just The sturdy seedling with arched body comes
as he has before burlesqued Fairfax's.
Shouldering its \Vay amI shedding the earth crumbs.
But his over-extension doesn ' t go unreprimanded . In a moment unique in
the history of poetry, the girl he has invented as something better than she is.
Thc excitement here is in th e voice finding its way from the homey, jocular
tUnlS on him , looks out of the " scene," out of rhe poem , one l11ight sayo She afTectio ns orthe {irst lines to the high ceremonious tone ofthe last five. That
cast~ off her role as a pas to ra l fig ure in an hi~torical-Biblical ma sque and change, and the way it registers as a perfo rmance 01' self-discovery, is what
rejccts his performa nce· " /le called us Isracl itcs." shc rem arks. Hcrre p udia­
Ihe pocm is a bout. As he discovc r$ tha l t he lite ral dcscript ion , if it can be
tion is implici t whcllwr u ne 1;l kcs her lone as HI1¡"'Ty UI" mcrcly shrugging .
called that, of his day-tilllc occtl pa t i\)11 is a mctapho ric desc ription of his
!\ppa ren tly Olle 1\::'111 1 llI" Ih¡; Civ il W~l r is I (¡ al 1I1l' lowc r dás~es wo n't
nighl -time love-mak ing allll thal 00111 hd l'V lifl: out nf the ca rt h, he is sud­
cól silv lakc uj l'~CIIOII,~ f1'0111 pa ti" ' lidisls nr IlI yl ho lllVill'lS wllo wri k IH)clry
de nl y Irailsl"nrnll'd into snnllllh intLo lhcl , 11; 111 Ihe IlIan w.: knew a l lhe nulsct.

III
1I
 TIIE PERl" o RMIN<l S U. I'
II H NI I I Y ¡\ N I) T 111 : SI: L1 '

pllct-criti¡;-anthologist, that "I t would seem absuro to sa)' it (ano you mustn ' t
His vo iee beco mes 01' no agc or place or time ¡;elebrating its liberation into
quotc me as saying it) but I suppose the faet is that my conscious interest in
myth even as the man , the farmer ano husbano , wntinucs expertly to wrap
pcnple was at first no more th an ,ln almost technical interest in their speech
ano plant the seeo. Or take thc final q uest ion in ' T he Oven Biro"--of"what
to ma ke of a oiminished thing. " Only the poet as a " maker" can answer the in what I useo to eall their sentence sounds."
Thc ¡;onnection between lhe mak ing of souno ano the oiscovery o f human
qucstion , ano not the bird. a " most explanatory biro," as Reuben Brower
rdatconess, between , eventually, poetie prowess and sexual prowess, is impli­
points out, " Who makes tlle solio tree trunks so uno again." The answer is
cit in more poems by F rost than 1 can mention here , a nd is exem plified witb
implkit in the performa nce of the pocm , as in t he steady iambic push against
parti¡;ular force and wit in "AII Re velation ," where the sex ual, phallic. orgasrnic
the troehaie fa1ling: "He says rhe early petal-fa1l is past,/ When pear ano
chcrry bloom went down in showers. " The metrical performan¡;e shows what punning is the most notable aspect of his performance:
it is like to meet and answer the " fall ," both the season a nd the eonoition .
A head thrusts in as for a view,

Biros are always a kind ofwonoer to Frost be¡;a use like poets they sing but
But where it is it thrusts in from

arc not, as are poets, in the same neeo ofbeing noti¡;ed. T hey sing, but they
00 not in Frost's sense " perform " : rcm ember that "One hao to be versed in Or what it is it thrusts into

I By what Cyb'laean avenue,

, '1 co untry thingsl Not to believe the ph oebes wept" for thc human dcsolati on
And what can of its ¡;oming come ,

a ro und them. One would be a bao poet ofnature ifhe th ought that birds were
poeb at a1l. W anting to be noti¡;co is wanting to be loveo, ano finally Fros t's Ano whithcr it "viII be withorawn,

l'rnphasis on the poet as aman of prowess refers us to "realms" of ena¡;tment A no what take henee or leave behind ,

more c1cmcntary tha n the world of public affairs whieh he woulo "Iet stew in These things the mino has ponoereo on

its o wn materialism. " 1t refcrs to the ¡;reative thrust of love. ¡>oetieally, this A moment and still asking gone .

means a thrust 01' the voi¡;e against the " fall " in a ll conceivable sen ses 01' that Strange apparition of the mind!

woro. We kn ow about the fal\. its relation to the souno 01' birds and poets,
a nd the co n nc¡;ti o n of a1l of these to sexuallove partl y btX:ause of the opening But the impervious geooe

Was entered , and its inner ¡;rust

lines o fthe beautiful sonnct " Nevcr Again Would Diros ' Song Be the Same":
Of crystals with a ray ca thooe

A t every point ano fa¡;et gloweo

He woulo oeclare ano eoulo himscJf believe

In answer to the mental thrust.

That the biros there in all thc garden round

Frorn having hearo the oaylong voice of Eve Eyes seeking the response of cycs

Hao aooeo to their own an oversound , Aring out the stars, bring out thc flowers,

Her tone of rneaning but without the woros. Thus coneentrating earth and skies

So none neeo be afraio of size.

F rost's oread is that there wiU only be silcnee, no so uno at all, in response /\11 revelation has becn ourS.

to his voiee as it tries to perform with Eve in nature ("As vain to raise a voiee
as a sighl In the tUnlult of free Ieaves on high ," he writcs in "O n Going
Unnotieeo ") or \Vith Eve in love (as in "Beren," or in " Aequainteo \Vith the
Nighf' where "an interrupteo ¡;ryl Came over houses from another street,l
Aut not to ¡;all me ba¡;k or say goooby") or in "Subverted F lower" where ,
faeco by a woman 's frigioity that is turning him into a beast " ... with every
\Voro he spokel His lips were suekcd ano blownl Ano the effort maoe hirn
¡;hokcl Like a tiger at abone. " When Frost uses so strong a \Voro as "anxiety"
in saying that "my whole a nxiety is for myself as a pcrformer" I ~uspee t that
he is talking abo ul hi mself as he exiSls in so und ano lhat no l bc ing listenco to
or
and no t bcing ans wcred in sOllno is eq ui valcn t lo 11ll: horror ortoss e realive
pow\J1". In lh is lighl we mig ht hes! IIlHlc rsl¡¡ nd hull l lit e clllhanassmenl and
s lru n~cncss 0 1" hi¡, 11111."1: wlilill l,! In WillÍt11l1 Stllllll-y Ut ai lhwaik. Ihl: 131m;"
Responses to the thrusts 01' love are even more mysterious here lhan are
answers to mental thrusts , but it is clear that the "revelations" he sceks come
from perfonnan¡;es for which sex is a wholly proper metaphor. Ano this
scxual performance, like poetic performance, is very mu¡;h the thing in itsc1f
(" ... what ¡;an of its ¡;oming come" ) without the attenoant metaphysics of
(lther poets who also think of themse1ves as men of " prowess" like Lawrence,
I kll1ingway. ami Ma iler.
Which lakes me JlO W. Ill Qre brietly. first to Mailer ano Ihen to Henry
.l ames. I d100~C the~e two bccause tliey an.: ll ot oriO llS sc1r-aovcrtiscrs whcn it
Cll l1lCS lo litcrury perform a nce : Mlli kl in n\!i1 r1 y ¡;wrylhing he'::; written si nce
¡ k a ¡'urÁ , Ih e lhird nrt'(lllrlccn hUlI"" ,IIII I.I:1I11eS in his Ii lerury cTiticisl11. his

11 r~
1' )
 JI)Ji N '1 1 .. Y i\ N J) 1' 11 ¡¡ SEL'­
Note!Jook.l'. some n f his Ir¡wcl wriling, espcciall y h is sland-off confrontation
with Ncw York Ci ty. a nd in lhe Pn:f~lccS , lhosc unahashed reconstruetions
and contemplations 01' a performing self. It is worlh noting parenthetically
thal self-conscious pcrformers, writers who Ii ke to find themselves in acts of
composition , are o ften more than ordin ari1y prolific. T hink , for another
example, of D ickens. Dickens is best identified for me in Robert Garis's
indispensably origina l study, Th e Dickens 1'llelltre, am} sorne of the criticisms
1'11 be making of Ja mes a nd Mailer are encouraged by Garis's hrillian t
discussion s of the aesthetics 01' performance. M y criticisms dependo as well,
on the hope tha t having written at length on James a nd having been o ne
01' the few who hon ored tbe ver)' large daims made by A n Am erican J)ream
and Why Are We in Vietnam? I needn ' t be unduly ca utious about using either
of lhese writers in an illustralively negati ve way- as examples of sorne of
lhe da ngers inherent in literary self- perform a nL:e. In any case, the failures I' JI
be discussing occur at an extremity 01' heroic effort in verbal dexterity: the
confrontation of the writer's performing self \Vith the irreducible power of
dea lh.
Those with a relatively greater confidence in their powers of self­
performance as against the resistant or indifferent powers of history show a
L:orrespond ingly greater theatricality in the faL:e of death than would writers
of the type 01' F rost or Marvell or Thoreau . T hus, in the "Horatian Ode, " as
Thomas Ed wards shows , Charles is a successful performer beca use he is so
fine an aelor while being so entirely unhistrionic: " He nothin g common did o r
meanl Upon that memorable scene,l But with his keener eyel The ax 's edge
did try ." Appropriate to his magnificent balance at the juncture of life and
death is a pun that balances both lJonditions in one word: the keenn css of lhe
eye a nd of the ax are fused in the Latin derivative ofaxe, ucies, which can
mean both eyesight and blade. Eye and blade will indeed soon meet and share
inanimateness; but, before that, the keenness orthe axe in no way Icssens and
is indeed excelled by the answering life of the K in g's eye.
As against this kind of performance 1 want to consider a passage from
Mailer and one from James where there is something like enviousness at work
in the tace 01' the magnitude of death, a violent and unsuccessful magni­
f1cation of the se\f through language in the effort to meet and overwhelm the
phenomenon of dcath. Mai1cr, who is surely one of our most astute Iiterary
critics, shows his awarelless of these issues whenever he talks of Hemingway.
In an interview printed in Presidelltia! Papas he makes a remark to which 1'11
return later- that " the first art work in an artist is the shaping of his own
personality." An d he then gocs on directly to talk about Hemingway and
death :
"Hemingwa y was o n the onc hanu a ma n 01' magnificent sense!;. T here was
a q uiL:k lilhc anim al in him. I le was also :.hac kh.:d lO a sl unled ape, a cripple,
a parliclll arly wild Jirly litl lu dwarf' \'. ilhi n himsl: lf' wllo wall lcd o nly lo kili
I kl lllll )!Wny, 1 in: as a Clln i(H\lIl1isl.' WilS il11 posSlhh' Sil 1" 111' ns Ilclll ingway
1;1
1'111 ' I'I ' RFORMING SU . I:
.lid not tcst himsc1f, push hi mself beyond his own dares, flirt with , engage ,
,lIId finally embrace death , in other words so long as he did not propitiate the
dwarf, give the dwa rf its chance to Iive and reel emotio!1 , an emotion which
1'lHl1d come to lite only when one was close to death . Hemingwa y and the
dwa rf were doomed to dull and deaden one another in the dungeon of the
psyche. Everyday life in such circumstances is a plague. The p roper comment
1111 Ilemingway's sty1e of life ma y be not that he dared death too much o but
IlIolittle, that brave a~ he was . he was not brave enough. a nd the dwarffinally
won . One d oes not judge Hemingway , but one ca n sa y that the sickness in
hilll was not his love of violencc but his inability to Iive as close to it as he
had too His proportions were tragic, he was all-but-doomed , it is possible
hl' would have had to have been the bravest ma n who ever lived in order to
propitiate the dwarf."
For those wh o persist in being mean-spirited about Mailer's 8Olf­
advcrtisements and promotions , his fascination with Hemingway, even in so
splendidly written a passage as tbjs , will seem little more than competitive
vulgarity, part of a ]jttle boy obsession with physical bravery and with bein g
Ihe biggest man in town . If Mailer is gui.lty of an y kind of vulgarity it is on ly
01' lhe kind essential to any work of arl- works of art do, after aH , aspire
lo popularity. When Mailer says that the "first art work in an artist is the
shaping of his own personality," he is saying something the reverse of what
is normaHy considcred vulgar, He is saying that he cannot take the se1f in
him for granted and that he cannot look outside himsc1f for an acceptablc
~dr.. image. The self is shaped, he says, " in" the artist , and this shaping he
l'alls "work "- - no easy job, nothing anyone can do for you and indeed made
1II0re difficult by the fact that some of the material " in" yOll has insinuated
ilsclf from outside. Hemingway is a writer who has done this shaping
with such authority, has given such accent <:tnd prominencc to the " first art
work" which is himself that he can count on getting the kind of attention
l'or subsequent art works- for his books , that is- that Mailer wOllld like for
his own.
From all such enterprise Mai1cr is lookin g for a ruther simple and decent
rcward : he wants to make sure lhat he will be read with care borderin g on
I~ar, with cxpectation bordering on shame. Dcscribing his efforts as he
worked on Dca Park. to twist his phrases so that they could be read well onl y
when rcad slowly (similarities are obviolls to James , and especially to Frost
wilh his prefercncc for cal' rather than eye readers) , he has to admit the cosl:
"Once yOIl write that way , the quiL:k reader (who is nearly all your alldience)
will stumblc and fall against the vocal shifts of your prose. Then you had best
ha ve lhe ca n d of a Helllingwa y, hCC<l lIse in such a case it is critical whether
Ihe n.:ader lhin ks il is yo ur faul t, or is so in awe of your rcputation that he
n:I LII'IlS l() lhe wu rds. Ih roUlcs his pal"e, :1I1l1 Iries lo J iscover why he is so
stllpid i1 S nul lo sw in g 1m lhe l)rr-l'n\! l It y O ll r stylc ," I'aced wilh writin g aboul
Ihl: 1 1I')~)II 'sh nl Il\ IW \ViII Maitul 11 " 1t l ' 111111 ,d I' I he ccnl rat eha racle!" 01' tlta l .
 11) 1: N 1 n y A NI> J 11 r: sr: L 1:
one wondered, until he emerged as lhe star Aquarius, the sign under which he
wal> bo rn- · Mailer bcgins \Vith a quotation from Hemingway about dealh
and then evokes his loss as if it removed the one shield between himself and
the ovcrpowering force of technology: "now the greatest li ving romantic was
dead . Oread was loose. The giant had not paid his d ues, and dread was in the
air. Technology wo uld fil1 the pause. 1nto the silences static would enter ."
Static, th a t is, were it not for th e performing voice ofyou-know-who, making
it sti l1 conceivab1e that man is " ready lo share the dread o f the Lord," to visit
the craters of the mOOIl , which is death , and still to exert the imagination
however much it seems overl1latched in power by tech nology.
There's someth ing 10vabJy, even idealisúcal1y youthful in Mailer's aspíra­
tion for fame. He wa nts to make himsclf an " art work" which wiU provide the
protective and iUumina ting context for all the other works he will prod uce.
But the habits thus engendered can and do lead to s0l1lething Iike over-self­
production. Mail er's \Vay of letting everything come lo Jife within that work
01' art which is hi rnself means that he must be extraordinarily ruthJess in
appropriating through metaphors any experience that threatens to remain
illdependent of him . He's a surprising victim of the academic-cuJtural yearn­
ing ror organicisl1l discussed in the previous chapter. W henever he feels eve n
possibly " overawed by the metaphor(s) in vogue" for a given situation , he
doesn ' t replace them so much as try to appropriate them to himselfby arare
blend of emulalion and mimicry. T he consequence, as in his writing about th e
assassination of Roben Kennedy in M iami une! Ihe Siege 0./ Chicago. can be
at times a bit terrified , extemporised in a frantic way, and tasteless.
Yet he is slIch a totally serious writer that some discriminations are in
order. Armies o/Ihe Nir:lu is full of beautifully accomplished accounts 01'
Mailer's efforts to seize actual control of public occasions. These efforts are
made by Mailer as a public act on the spot and later described by that other
acting self who is Mailer the writer. Very often the writer succeeds in the
writing by admitting that he failed as a participant. History and the writing
ofhistory are not confused as actions. Miami amI Ihe Siege o/Chicogo is quite
a dilTerent book . To do the writing at all , on a deadline from l/arper·.I'
Magazine, he had to sta y away from the real action , a\Vay from the cops and
out ofjail. The burden on the writing, the burden of a self determined to force
its c1aims upon history beca me, as a result, too much for lhe style to bear.
Especially so when Mailer inserts himself as a bargaincr between Kennedy
and God , and does this in ways that protect him from Fa ustian absurdity
only by his becoming él version of Hugh Heffner, even if a somewhat
Hawthornean version:
A fe w nighls a rtcr this debate. lhe repo rter WH s a W<lkcned rrom a
particlllarl y o rnrcssive fl igh tmHn.: by IIn: ring ing ol";¡ héll. He hcard
lhe voicc 01' ;¡n (l Id drink ing !"ricnd he liad 11 0 1 ~ec lI ill two yca rs.
"(\)x." he :-;hlllilcd inl o Ik ph ollc. ":01.: yll ll l\ll t ,,1' VO III sk llllT INO'f'
lit
1'111 : f>CRFORMIN(i SI : 1.1:
Ihol ill1age, ((S (/il C((/11e lo hi/'/1 he!óre he heord II/CLl Kel1nedy Iwd heen
.1'1101 in Ihe heod, and note (lIso Iha! Ihe nighll11are ¡,sel/, i.\' u sign o/
premonilory p()lvers we are nol mea/1.t lo lhink accidenwl.]*
"What d o you mean by calling at three A .M .?"
"Look," said the friend , "get the television on. 1 think you oughl
to see il. Bobby Kennedy ha s just been shot.·
"No," he bellowed. " No, No! No! " his voice railing wi th an ugli­
ness and pain reminiscent to his ear [AmI here /he sel(-wolch(ulness
hegins, as he moves lo Ihe cenIa 01" Ihe occasiol1.] of the wild grunts of
a wounded pig. (Where he had heard that cry he did not at the moment
remember.) He felt as if he were being d ispoiled of a vital part
of himself [Per/¡aps his /Jrain? lIis 011'11 skull as (( match j ór Rohert
Kennel~Y 's?] and in th.e middle ol" this horror [o vague re(erence. and
nol lo Ihe as.\'((ssination] noted that he screamed like a pig, not a \ion,
nor a bear. The reporter had gone for years on the premisc that one
must balance every moment between the angel in onesclf and the
swine- the sound ofhis own voice shocked him lherefore profollndly.
The balance was not what he thought it to be . He watched television
for the next hours in a state which driJted rudderless between two
horrors. Then , knowing no good answer could come for d ays. if at
all, on the possible recovery of Bobby Kennedy, he went back to bed
and lay in a sweat of complicity [From duplic(lling Ihe "horror" o( /he
(/ ,\',\'assination lVil/¡ ol1e (Ir /¡is 011'11 . he 1I0l\! !11Ol'es inlO posilion lo slwre
/)(/,.1 0./ Kennedy's.] , as if his own lack of moral lVilness (to the sllbtle
heroism of Bobby Kennedy's attempt to run for President) could be
found in the dance of evasions his taste for a merry lite and a married
\lne had become. as if this precise lack had contributed (in the vast
architectronics ofthe cathedral ofhistory) to one less piton ofmoor­
ing for Senator Kennedy in his lonely aseent to those vaulted walls,
as ir tinally the erforts of brave men depended in part on the pro­
tcction of other men who saw thel1l selves as at leaSl provisionally
braveo or sometimes brave, or at least- if not brave--balanced at
Icast on a stability belween selfishness and appetite and therefore- ­
by practical purposes ··-decent. But he was close to having become
lpo IllLlch of appetite- he had spcnt the afternoon preceding this
night 01' the assassination in enjoyin g a dalliance --Iet LIS leave it at
Ihal a not uncharacteristic \Vay to have spent his time [ril e lalk
(1{"lIrcl1il('chll"Onic,\' of/he call1edral (~//¡is[ory." o/"/he lonely aseen/ "
1/1 ¡N}\l"('r Il'ilh r('specl lo Kelll1edy is /1wlcll ed here by /he tone ol1.d
I'(I/'II!,/t!(/rv /101 0./ ti sporl huI 0./ (/ spor/ (JI" royal hlood en¡oy ing ti
t!(/I!i(//u '('" clm! privi!ege " 11'1 liS {¡'(/I'C' il al [halo ., 110 1\1 else ('(In he
111:ll' , a nd 111 111.: suhs~qlll'1I1 pass:!!'.\" f tlltll 1 .1l 11i·~'" N"/," ,¡!",,.\", lIIy COl1llllcnts Otl Ihe
\\lI lltl l' wlll :IPlw ar hr:Il'\..ch;d alld tl :dt. t/ " '¡ W llll1l1 l ile l(lIIIlaliot\ .
'- '1
 IOIIN r I I VAN !) '1''' 1 ~l:II '
imagine lhal h;'I' ,\'u/J.I'equel/l ol/á lo I//(' Lord \I',ni/e/ Il'eigh .I'ulfif'ienl/y
ill lhe balance'!] . .. . he prayed lhe Loro to take lhe pricc on his own
poor mortal self (since he hao flesn in s urfeit to ofrer) he beggeo tnat
G od spare Senalor Ke nnedy's lite, ano he woukl givc up sometning,
give up wnat? gi ve up some ofthe magic he could bring to bear on
som e one or another of the women, yes, give up that if the lite wouJd
be sa ved, and fell back into lhe horror oftrying to rest wi th the sense
that his offer might ha ve been given too late and by the wrong vein
[Tlle pun is too la.l'le/ps.l' lo need exp/icalion.]- eonfession lo his wife
was wllat tne moral press ure had first demandcd - and so fell asleep
with some gnawing sense 01' the Devil tnere to snatch his offering
after tlle angel hao moveo 0 11 in disgu sL"
The energy that goes astray in this passage is the samc energy that can
elsewhere manitest itself as genius. And one wishes. fol' Ma iler's sale, as one
has so often for Lawrence's , that tnere existed the kino of eritieism James
calleo fol' at the beginnings ofthe century, In his Preface to Wil1g.l' o/the Dove
he expresseo the still vain hope that "surel y so me acute mino ollght to have
workeo out by this tim e tne 'la\\" of the degree to whieh the anist's energy
fairly oepends on his fallability. How much and how often, and in what
connections and with what almost infinite variely. musl he be a dupe, that of
his prime object, to be at all measurably a master, that ofhis actual sllbstitllte
for il - or in other words at all appreciably to exist?"
James is the great theorist ano exponent of "composition," both as a form
of art and a mooe of existence. He speaks of the " thrilling lIpS and downs, the
intrieate ins ano outs of the compositional problem ... becoming the ques­
tion at isslIe and keeping the aLlthor's heart in his mouth ," and daims that
"one's work should have composition , beca use eomposition alone is pos­
itive beauty." Howe"er familiar this insistence. only a few critics have taken
James strenuously at his woro. Quentin Anderson , Lawrence Holland and
Leo Bersani. To 00 so raises quite disturbing problems about the nature 01'
the human meanings we ean legitimately extraet from what might be, on James's
part, a prior ano more intense commitment to the shapeliness of human
actions . Tlle final seene of 711e Amhassadors has evokeo a vast effort 01'
interpretation that almost wholly ignores James 's to me astonishing admis­
sion that he faeeo the problem 01' "how and where and why to make M iss
Goslrey's false eonnection carry itself, under a due high polish . as a real one.
No\-vhere is it more 01' an artful expeoient for mere consistency of form , to
mention a case. lhan in the last 'scenc ' 01' the book ... "
"Composit ion" in James is never a matter of mcrely mecha nical consis t­
em.:y of fonn. BlI t uespitc his talk abOllt "I'n:co om ," unJ his dramalizations in
'The Turn 0 1' lhe $crcw" 0 1' thc horrors thal n:sull rrnm viola tiOlls 01' it,
Jam\!s 's a nntllllll,:CU prCtlCClIpaliol1 wilh r(III1Il"OI I ~til lltcs a killd nI' f'carso mcl y
hl.!nicll c"t:r~IS\! n I' 1t 1a1l;¡I~e n h..·11 1 !lnd l'O llll lll ll ltl ,")III IIIWIl 'iO Ih al lile " llCI nJ"
/ 1,
TJlI: PI! IU'O R M I N (j SI : 1.1 '
nI' a novel like ¡he ,'>'poi/s ol PoynlOn exists pleasingly rol' him only when it
1\ Illost miniseule- a merc ten words- and the rest of wbat his informant
IIt 'iists on telling him represents on ly "dumsy Li fe again at her stupid \Vork ."
J'lIe less given by Life the greater will be his a uthority over what he takes, and
1\11 Ihe " master b uilde r," thi s sense of "authority" is " the treas ure 01' treasLlres.
Ilr alleast thejoy ofjoys. " It " renews in the modern alchemist something like
IlIl' old oream 01' the secret 01' Ii fe. "
It isn't surprising that James's efforts to dea l with the dea th of those
lI\:arcst to him in his famil y- his efforts to do so as a writer, th at is. which are
lile only efforts I'm concerned with here -co nstitute a n extreme challenge to
his élutnority as a shaper of life. Death is uLi fe again al her stupid work."
,'spcciall y for a writer for whom " the sense o f the state of the oeao is b ut part
lit' lhe sense of the state of the living, " It is, however, "stupio \York " of a
Illlloriously irresistible kind; it can't be disposed of even by a rt as the merely
wasteful part 01' a "germ " that was, dearly, more than a "germ " of sugges­
lilln . No wonder that for all his marvelolls suppleness in the management of
lil'tional death- thinl of the timing 01' the final conversation between R alph
ami Isabel in The Porlraü ola Lady- James should be so severe1y challengeo
hy the real deaths in his life; no wonder his tone when meeting the graves
lit' his mother, fatner, sister, ano most cherished brother should lurch into a
discomfortin g theatricality. He is describing a visit to the family grave in
( ';[mbridge Ccmetery, and lhe fad that the writing occurs in the Notebooks,
not in tended for publication , makes the self-eonsciousness about perfo rm­
;IIICC all the more remarkable.
Thc self-consciousness isn 't merely implicit in verbalmannerisms; it is also
a 1I1atter 01' his aetually reterring to writing as an ad barely possible against
IlIl' pressures he encountcrs as he proceeds, the problem, literally, of holdin g
IlIl' pen :
"' Isn't the highest oeepest note of lhe whole lhin g the never-to-be-Iost
IIll'JllOry of that evening hour at Mount Auburn- at the Cambridge Cem­
l'Icry when I took my way alone-after much waitin g for the favourin g
1I11ur- to that unspeakable grollp of graves. It was late, in November; the
IIl'cs all bare. the dusk to fall early, th e air all still (at Cambridge, in general,
,lO slill), \Vith the weslern sky more and more turning to the terrible, deadly,
pme polar pink that shows behind American winter wooos. But I can't go
llwr Ihis I can only, oh, so gently, so tenoerly, brush it and breathe upon
11 brcathe upon it and brush it. It \Vas the moment: it was lhe hour; it \Vas
lile hlcsscJ Ilood of cmotion that broke out at the toueh 01' one's slloden
1'1,00/1 ano carricd me away. 1 scemed then to know why 1 nao donc lhis: I
',l'(' llICO lhcn to know why , had ( 'O l//(' ami to fecl how not to have come
wt,.t1d h'lve hccn IIliscra bl y, Iwrri bly lo l1liss it. [Tlle 'it' is Ih e upparenl
, 'IIlIjlllli'1io// nf' t'irl'l/!l),\'/lI l1 l'f'.I' 1/"11 /l/II/it· 11 ',1"" ' //(" (/1/(/ a liOlI' I fU' il/creasing
1It",UfÚ ', d 1//(//1/('11111/1/ uf' 1/'" If/, ('(I /II /I I 111<' 11\01111 was therc ca rl y, whitc amI
y illl1 I¡!, ,111.1 ~I.:cllled Idk,"'e~ 1 in 1111" wlll ll I¡II I.' 111' lile grcal l'mrl y Slad illlll,
I I1
 I U 1.: l' BR F o R M 1 N {I S In 1­
I IJ E N T 1 l' Y i\ N U '\ 111: S I: L1 '

sludy alive in the face 01' the competition now hefore it. W e must begin to
forming one 01' lhe boundaries 01' Soldiers' rield, that looked over at me,
stared over at me, through the dear twilight, from across the Charles. Every­
IK~gin again with the most elementary and therelore the tOllghest questions:
what must it have fel l ljke to do this- not to mean anyth.ing, but to do jI. 1
th ing was there, cverything came; the recognition, stillness, the strangeness,
1hink anyway that that's where the glory lies: not in tbe tragedy but in the
the pity and the sanctity and the terror, the breath-catching passion and the
di vine relief of tears. Willia m 's inspired transcript, on the exquisite little .'.ayety of Hamlet and Lear and 01' J ry-eyed ShakespeaJe. lndeed wh o knows
ir ror Shakespeare there was e ven any d read to be transfigured . M aybe he
Plorentine urn 01' A licc's ashes, W illiam 's divine gift to us. a nd to her, 01' the
Dantean Iines- 'Dopo {ungu exilio e marliro{ Vien.e aquesta pace'- took me Illok él beginning and jt took him , as " germs" will d o, and off rhey went.
so at the throa t by its penetrating righlness, that it was as if one sank down on
one's knees in a kind of anguish of gratitude befo re something for which one
had waited with a long, deep ache. But why do I write of lhe a ll unutterable
and th e all abysmal? W hy does my pen not drop from my ha nd on approach­
ing the infinite pity and tragedy 01' all the past? It d oes, poor helpless pen ,
with what it meets of the ineffable, what it meets of the cold Medusa-tace o f
lile, ol' all the lite {ived, on every side. Basta, hasta'"
Evcrywhcre in this ena ctment, in this recollection of what it was li ke to
arrange the scene theatrically, in this report ofwhat it fec\s li ke to write wha t
is being written ("wh y do I wri te," "why does my pen not drop")- at every
italics, every allusion , every patterned repetition there is what Prederick
D lIpee notes as James's "characteristic passi on and idiom. " But there is
dist urbingly more than that. Por one thing there is what James once de­
scribed when feeling a physical chill at the recollection ol' a dead friend : "the
power of prized survival in personal signs." He is lIsing language designed lO
rem inu himsell' ol' how fully alivc he is. For another, there is an imperialism
\Vith respect not only to the fami.ly but to the ambience, to the weather itsell'
as a contributory theatrical factor. Without blin king, the imperialism looks
l'orward to its hallucinated form in those terribly pathetic last da ys of James
himselfwhen, in delirium , his dictations to Theodota Bosanquet exposed his
deep identifications with Napoleon Bonaparte, inc\uding a letter signed in
that name by James about the redecoration ol' the Louvre and the Tuilcries,
and another, this one also addrcssed to " my dear brother and siste r" but
signed in his own name, in which he apportions them "your young but so
highly considcred Republic" as an opportunity for " brilli ant fortune ." Such
was a way of facing, " at last, the distinguished thing. "
But Iest we be carried away by the poignancy of a ll this, let me insist that
James, like Frost, probably had, at the terrible depths 01' creative power, "a
hell of a good time doing it" - - there at his desk, there at the cemetery arrang­
ing the scene for the desk, there even in his room dying \vhen he dictated
his last ruminations . What is literary criticism to do wilh something so
wonderful , with writing as an aCl of keeping alive rather than an image ol'
lil'e or ofli ving? O r let's forgcl lilcrary erit icism ami ask what in the tcaching
0 1' Iiteralure one can do wil h l he phel1()m Cf1(ln 01' pcrlormanl:e. Il scems lo
mc thal one \Vay lilcra llln: eal1 ¡( /1d Sh Olfld be Inllghl is i/1 cO/1junclion wilh
other kin ds nI' p llrfornlll/lCC wilh dLlf1ell, fll ll Sic. tilr ll. SPC)) Is :md Ihal a
com pa ru liw LI/1 :¡/Y'¡<¡ 11 1' molles llr pl' f r Ol IllllflL'l' IlUl y imlccd k(,;cf'l li tcrary

'1
'0

69
PR ESE N TI N G AN D
RE -PR ES ENT I NG T H E SELF
From not-acting to acting in African performance
Frances Harding
Sou rce: TD R. T/¡c Jou/'nal o! l'er/ól'/}UII/CC SI ¡¡dies 4:1(2) (1 ')9'.)): ) ) 8- ) 35.
¡,v'ha¡ is unil'er.l'ul in /JeI.!órma!1ce is ¡he (,OI1SciUlIS/les.\'
pcr/r)/'Il/a!1i·e.
- Herberl B/au (/990. 259)
Introduction
This artide forms part 01' a \Vider study of the performer in African contexts
in which I am less concerned with the intention, bcliefs, and putative efficacy
01' any given performance- a focus that receives continual attention from
m any scholars-than \Vith the tech oiques, methods, and oecasions ofbehavior
lhat distinguish the two types of perfo rming: not-acting and (/cting.
Some studies of African theatre and perfonnance (see Drewal 1992)
have made Use 01' the performance theories of Richard Schechner, Herbert
Bla u, and others. T he eollection of essays eclited by Phillip Zarrilli, ACling
( Re)Col1.1'idered, has brought together theories of acting which have been
dcveloped over several decades. Among the most useful 01' these for the
purposes 01' this articlc has beeo Miehael Kirby's methodical exposition 01'
the subtle differences in performing bet\Veen not-acting and acting ((1972J
1995).
This article attempts to apply to performers in Africa the tirst seetion 01'
Kirby 's not-acting to acting continuum- - the nrst three stages. which deal
wilh non-acting-- and to note how it shades into "acting" with a change of
context, even when not initiated by the perfo rmers. Fi rst are those roles tha t
req ui re minim al ski lls a nd are performed by person:; whom I sha ll rcf'er to
as " stagehands," recognizi ng tha t whilc in Westcrn lhca lrc lh is dcs igna tion
reler::; lo ufrstagc anu l;t rgcly u nsec l1 act iv ir y th¡11 111 11 Y fl nl rClJ lli rí! speci<J1
sldlls, tltis is 110l urways so in iln Af'riClI lI C()lI lc\1. /l 1~' ~il llJ'l'J I;llId i ~. ho wcvl!r
1')
I'R LSLN II N (i AN I> R E-I'IU~SFN II N (i 1'111: SI·:L1 i
always in a supporting role and cannol sustain a performance independent of
;1 kading character.
Whilc they occupy a conspicuous status for the duration ot' a perfo lm ance ,
·.tagchands are not themsel ves perceived primarily as performers but simply
liS support for the central character. Although they predominantly fulfi1l a
t1I1Il"tional role within a perfo rmance and thus are "non-matrixed " - to use
Kirby's term- in respect to the reasons why they a re in a staged relationship
lo a performer, they are, as we shall see, " matrixed ." To thi s extent. they may
he dcscribed as performers with a bit parl or a walk-on part, as th.is kecps
"pen the possibility of some deliberate intention on their pa rt to present
I hemselves as perforrners, albeit in a limited way. Even when the " stage11and­
perrormer" Jeliberately presents her- or him selfl as a performer, the prim ary
'Ihjcctive and responsibility 01' the slagehand is to enabll' the leading actor lo
pClform appropriately, and without worry or concern about the mechanics 01'
('ostume, location , or timing.
111 seeking to ascribe feaLmes of reality and pretence as proposed by K irby
lo Ihe presentations of performers in Africa, there are, however, two further
(JI dilllensions that need to be taken into account: The first is tbe audien ce­
pl!rrormer relationship in which the intcraction between them is a suspension
.,1' rile ordinary rather than a suspension of reality amI thus constitutes more
nI' a heighlenillg of reality in which it is recognized that ordinary people can
hl.!come extra-ordinary ror a period of time. The second feature foUo ws from
this and constitutes a prcference for multilayered performances whcreby any
,11Ie performer may , within a single perfo rmance. be at one point " acting"
.llId at another "presenting the self." Neither the audience nor the perform er
('xpcriences any difficulty in accol1lmodating a movemcnl. between the two. A
',lIslained, unintcrruptcd representation is not required in order to convince
Ihe spectators of the presence 01' an "other. " It is more a case 01' recognizing
Ihal some people have- albeit temporarily (i.e., for the duration of the
I'c rformance)- the power to move between the presentation 01' self amI the
pll'sl~lltation of an " other. "
In lhe case 01' those whom-- in order to emphasize their functional role­
I have called stagehands. the notion of an "aside-in-reverse" might help the
I l'a~ler to comprehend the q uality of change inherent in playing this role.
Ily Ihis I mean that the percentagc 01' time, within a single performance, that
thc stagehand-perfo rmer is interacting directly with thc audience as himself
I as in a conventional Western aside) is considerab.Jy greater than the time
IIl' is playing a role. In thcse roles, while the stagehand does not " pretend"
ltl bc somcone e1sc. he is, nevertheless, in several performance forms (the
Ihd1io p up pct thea tre, the Sa po masks. the Chamba mask) , engagcd in aet­
I Vllics Ihal are "ma kc- bel ieve" and Ihcrcro re can be said lo shade slightly
IlIl n ¡Ieling. This cXl~ rn rl ifi es Ihe cl' uci:1I po int within such performances: the
I oI;I Yi!1 S J lí nol ncu:ssuri ly lII ailll aill :1 "I lItdc mull e 0 1' perflmning throu gh­
,,"1 ;1 r cr l'\)11I1lI nn:, hll l lII uy 1I l\\W 111 11 le" 111"1 1"1'111 Iy hclWCC Il " prelc llcc" and
"(
 IDI N 'l ' rlv "NI> lilE SI1 U '
reality. While this Illight seelll Bn.~ehlia n in il s I'jj/'C(, in faet it does not serve
to relllind lhe spcelator that whal Ihey a re seeing is just a fiction and the
character is in rcality just an onJinary person , but rather lo dClllonstrate that
an ordinary person can becollle ex tra-on.linary,
In the seco nd Illodality I place th ose perforlllances which have no aspira­
tion to " pretence," focus on presenting an intensificat ion of self, require a
high degree 01' perforllling skill, ami may be eithcr suppo rt or !ead roles ,
The absence ofany aspiration to acting and the presence ofhighly developed
skills di stinguish this modality from the first, a lbeit in the case o f suppo rt
roles, th ey are still parlo/' e/ahorating the central a ct o r c haracter. These
support performers, reeognized as skillful and entertai ning in their own
right, often use the opport un ity to present the mscJves in such a wa y as lo
gain recogn ition and applause for their skills. Howeve r, like the stageha nu­
perforlller, they prim a rily support the central characters and do no t upstage
ce ntral perfo rmers, W hile they may even perfo rm separately- spatially 0 1'
sequcntially- frOlll them, their presence relllains dependent on that of the
Icad pcrrormer. This is .vhat distinguishes them from the lead perfo rme rs,
'r ucia l1y, Ihey are nol acting- i.e .. they do not attempt to imply that they are
a nyol1e (llher lhan thcmselves nor that they are in any " time or place different
rrom Ihe speclator" (Kirby [1972J 1995: 43), Lead performers in this modality
are lhose whose acts, displays of skill , 01' presentations of self are the prim­
ary focus 01' the cntertainment. A mong them are acrobats, dancers, anjm al
tamers , storylcJ1ers, m usicians. sna ke charmers, strongmen , a nd pra ise singers
whosc performance draws an audience irrespective of any other performers.
Kirby sets out a basic definition of acting: "To act means to feign , to
simulate, to represent, to impersonate" ([1972J 1995: 43), He makes a primary
distinction between acting that is " active" on the part of the performer, and
'1 mi the manner in which " other qualities lhat define acting may also be applied
lO the performer" by onlookers (44), This posits an elementary birurcation
between the active intention 01' lhe perpetrator-performer and the active
perception of the reeipient-spectator. It recogn izes a distinction between
performers who are deliberately seeking to present the self as " other" and
those whose acti vi ties are not intended to ha ve any of the connotations
of Kirby's definition of acting but wh o may nevertheless be perceived as
/,'1
acting, This is what Kirby calls "received aeting" and precedes t\Vo further,
more intense, and -cruciaJ1y- intentiol1a/ degrees 01' acting which he names
as "simple" acting and "comp1cx" acting. These latter categories 01' per­
forming emphasize the dcliberate presentation 01' an " other" rather than the
"self"- in essence, actil1g, I shall consider these stages in detail clsewhcre and
will here just briefly refer to simple acting. 1 wiJ1 conc1 udc tbis a rticle with an
analysi s of lhe p resenta tion o f self as other a mong Ih e N uba men 01' S udan .
My cxample, Nuba person al art, t~t1ls al Ihe lh ird poinl o n K irby's con ­
lin uLl fll , rccci ved aCli ng, In ils orig in a l con ll;:~I . N uha nC l's~ln al al'! rOmlCU
pa rl 01' a d LJ ~ I Cr 01' scusll nul aClivilies bltl , 11 1Itkl COIIIl'III(lorary "::<1\.'1'1 1<1 1
)'1
I'I<LSI ' N IIN (j ¡\ N I) R E -I' R E SI!N I'I N ( j 111 1: SIi Ll'
Pl l'SS III'CS, has become a double-Iaycrcd presentation 01" self in which the
I'l',/'ormers re-present th emselves. Thc practice of self-Jecoration which iden­
II IK'S a young man as healthy and physicaJ1y strong among the Nuba people
!sn:' huis 1972: 19) initially placed them as symbolically matrixeu within the
" .delY, but was perceived by olltsiders in such a way as to constitute receivcd
Id lllg, and then , in respo nse, reconstituted and reinforced by t he Nuba men
I h ~,trlsc1ves to become a form 01' simple acting.
So that the reader can situate thi s a rticle into a fuller context, 1 begin by
111 ie lly outlining K irby 's framework a nd then consider how it can be useflllly
.IJlplicd lo the experience of African performers.
Kir by's continuum
" Irhy has named fi ve stages of the t ransition from not-acting into aeting to
t!I'sLTibe the range of human behavior that constitutes the pTesentation of the
"dI' "in a special way" : " [ WJe can follow a continuous inc rease in the degree
,.1 rcpresentation from nonmatrixed performing through symbolized matrix,
Il.'cc ived acting and simple acting to complex acting" ([1 972] 1995: 51).
Thcse concepts 01' performing as representation concentrate on the indi­
\ ídllal experience 1'01' both the perpetrator and the recipient, i,e., perrormer
;lIld spectator. Applying Kirby's framework and methodology to perfo rm­
,IIIL'L' in Ahíca enables an ana lysis of the attitudes and expectations of the
I','rl'ormer in relation to perform a nce to be developed without reference to
lit,' degree of belief involved, In t he essentially phenomenological experience
1.1' pcrrormi'ng, belief is not a measure 01" q uaJjty of performance, even if it is
.,1' socio-spiritual effkacy:
Bclief may exist in either the speclator 01' the perrormer, but it does
not affect objective c1ussitication according to out' acting/nol-acting
s¡;a1e, Whether atl actor reels what he or she is doing to be " real " or
a spectator really " believes" what is seen , does not change the c1assi­
licalion of the perrormance [ . , , j ,
(51)
By addressing the phenomenon of performing within él continuum of
Ilol-acting" to "acting:' Kirby 's framework avoids the sociological overlap
helwcen "sacred" and "secular," " old" and " new" , "ritual " and "drama," and
IIIL'lISCS inslcad on lhe craft of perrorming in its several modes ,
Rcconciling dL'Sirc and ability
Nol evcryom: who would likc I() J i:.pb y Ih e sel r as .I'kill"c1 ha.s cqual co m­
r~' kll cc,
illli.l gíllatinll . \ )r lalc lI l , ,lIId 1111 , 1I 1.'~' Lssil al l.!S sume peo plc occ upyin g
killl " I\lk ~ w lllh' Il llIl.'lS t ;J~ 1.' Il Jl ',11/1111111 11 11' " fll k\ , RCC\)g llili ll ll uf lile
 I f)E N TlJ' Y A NI> Tll l i SI ' I I
relative nature 01' sk ill and talent is cvident in the widespread use of strue­
tured competition in many soeieties throughout Afrka (Horton 1960;
Ottenberg 1975). Even within kin-based organ izations with responsibility for
funerary or other ceremonial rites such as hun lers' dan ces , blacksmiths '
dances, or masquerades. there is room for flex ibility regardi ng the extent and
nature of individual involvement in performance.
How then is the desire to displ ay the sel f a nd ambi¡ion to perform recon­
ciled with ahilily within a performance? Happily. in the production of a
performance. there a re many tasks, functions , and roles to be fulfiJled. all
necessary but not all req uiring cqual skills or sharing equal responsibility.
Those wi th lhe talent and the in terest may o pt to take up a lead ing role, while
those with interest and less ability can opt to take up a supporting role. Pcer
and commllnity preSSllre enable the rank ing to takc place informally at a
pri vate. socia llevel and publicl y at a competiti vc leve!. I have seen a disabled
()ung man d a nce his rightful share 01" a funerary da nce and stiJJ be openly
la ughcd at ror daring to get up and dance in public.
The first modaüty: the stagchand
T his ambivalcnt category 01' performer flllfills a very necessary role in many
perfo nnances in African socicties--althollgh the skills requ ircd may not be
01' a very dcmanding natllre. These persons are seen onstage. but may not be
considered to be either acting or performing. They may not even consider
themselves to be "performing. " but rather just carrying out a task. They are
clearly outside the "informational structure of the narrative" (Kirby [1972]
1995: 44) according to the visual evidence of costuming or masking, yet their
presence cannot be ignored and is essential to the performance. This con­
stitutes Kirby 's first category of "perceived" performer. whjch he calls "non­
matrixed" (44). These are those stage persons who: " Eveu if the spectator
ignores them as people [ ... ] they are not invisible. They do not act, and yet
they are part 01' the visual presentation " (44). In sorne instances, they are
" supporters" ; in others , their task is as " minders" or " attendants. " protecting
both the pcrformer and the audience (Bravmann 1977: 52). Often , the central
performer--for example. the masked figure , the stilt walker, 01' the concealed
puppeteer- may have his vision limited by the costume. In such instances,
there are guides who lead or conduct performers safely around or out of a
pcrforming area . Alternatively, performers may be in an altered state ofmind
or a trance. amlnced to be "brought back" or fenced around so that they do
not harm themselves. For example, in the hori possession cult 01' the Hausa
people 01' northern Nigeria , several women are designated as assistants
(O nwuejeogwu 1969: 28 3).
Evcry performance requircs technical élss islalll.:l' and Icchnicu l ass istanls
whosc t<J sk is lo makc possih k lhe pcrrUllnCI 's IilSk or l·ll h: rtain ing. Such
pcople ure "sia.gchand,," a dc.'icripI illJl rd kd íl1 J' Ilk'JI snppoll lvc. Jl oncni\ac.cU
1¡,
I'ltI Sl i N I IN<i AN D RE - I ' I~I Sl'N rt N<il lf H s t' u '
wll.!. Thcy are therc to prepare for the performance and to cnsure that it runs
·, lIIoolhly. They rcmove obstacles so that nothing will distract the audience's
.llh'nlion from the performer. They have tasks to fulfill throughout the per­
IlIn nam:e, before. d uring. and arter:
The preparations for lsinyago begin some days before the actual da y
or performance. The ani mals are made in the bush preferably in a n
arca where there is plenty 01' bamboo and grass .
When the makers are satisfled with their wor k, they prepare a
square ncar the village 01' homestead where the pe rforma nce will
take place. This square is joined to the actual village square by a
c1ean , stump-free "road ." [sic] T hi s is important. Dancing during a
dark night and dressed in their masks. the danceTs eannot see their
way. Their path must be clear to avoid caJa mities.
(Wembah-Rashid 1971: 40)
Such activities rep resent the extreme end 01' the functional aspect 01' being
.1 slagehand. They also represent the least visi ble aspect o f the stagehand 's
work. Bul not all stagehands carry out their work invisible to the audiencc .
Nor do they always play sllch clearly backstage and offstage roles , but rather
IIslIally make a morc creative contribution onstage in a number 01' ways.
I )l'snibing, for example, a 1914 Ibibio puppet theatre constructed from
hlallkcts stretched loosely across posts, Percy Amaury Talbot noted the role
..1' slIch attendants in setting the scene and creating "atmosphcre":
In front stood three men, armed \Vith brushes 01' palm flbre, with
which they continually beat the screen 01' blankets causing them to
quiver. and thus hide any rnovement made by lhe real performers as
Ihey passed up and down behind . The practical purpose ofthis little
picce of byplay \Vas disguised from the credulous onlookers [ ... ] by
the pretext that it was part 01' the powerfu l Broom Juju and neces­
sary for the manifestation of the spirits 01' the play.
(1923: 76·-77)
Wltat Ámaury Talbot refers to as "byplay," is in ract a key task. The
·.I/pport perrormers arc essential to the reinforcement of the illlplicit narrat­
IV\.' 01" the performa nce, regardless of how purely functional their role may
,IPIK'ar. Their role is a bridge between the nonhuman world 01' the puppets
!llId Ihe Ituman world 01' the spcctators. Ir the movernents 01' the puppeteers
Illside alld III1J crncath the slage WCIC not screencd. spectators would have to
I'lIhl idy ad.llmvlcd ge th e prcs\!n~c llr hllm a n beings as t lle a.ctive agency
Illllhili /.ing Ihl! puppCls. In lhe Ihihi ll pll p pcl lhca lrc. hccausc lhei r actions a re
~ llll h:x t ll ali lcd as Ituving mCil ll tll p IlIl" 1,1.llI kl'l -bcatcrs·' bccolnc part 01' the
1111 11 1111:1 Ii, 'lIa I Sl llll'l m e o r llw pctfp1tllll l1 ~l' ,/11\1 :/1 e Ihcrclú n: ma l rixed .
 1/) 1; N 1 11''1' ¡\NI) 1'1 11 : S E L F·
Ncverthcless, however essentiallhcy are to the performance, it is never the
"custodian " (Fardon 1990: 156), "guide," or "atten dan t" (Bra vmann 1977: 52)
that the auuienee comes to see, fo r the role ofthe stagehand is to reinforce the
role of the central character.
Although K irby has pointed out that tht! Japa nese kab uki attendants a re
not within the " informational structure 01' the narrative" (45), when we turn
to the stagehand in Africa n performance, wefind that he is- sometimes
implicitly and often ambiguously, as with the [bibi o - incorpora ted in tbe
str ucture of the narrative. One key lies in the perception of tbe performance.
Within kabuki performance, there is public reeognition that a fiction is
bein g enacted , whereas within ma sked or puppe t performance in the A frican
context, the specta tor may be interacting with the p uppet performer o r
the masked figure as bringing a partic ular kind of reality briefty into being.
The spectators' part in the enacted world of the performers is-publicly a t
least - -to acknowledge the puppets or masked figures as spií'its, deities. or
ancestors.
The hidden manipulators in puppet performances require external assist­
ance, as do many masqucrade performers. [n these performances, the sup­
port performer often interacts \Vith lead masked performers so that they can
fulfill their more specialized roles, as for example when the sightlines of the
masked figure are partially restricted by costuming. fn order to ensure that
the maskeu figure is able lO move around safely, that its costume remain s
secure, and that it does not exceed the behavior appropriate to its charac­
terization, it may need to be guided by another person , a stagehand. Further­
more, as a masquerade performance can last throughout the day, this
stagehand/guide m ust abo fan the masked figure to keep it cool , lead it to a
place where it can rest and drink , and generally protect it during and between
acts. In performance, the stagehand may tic a ro pe around the middle of the
masked figure and then hold onto the end so that both the masked figure and
the spectators are protected from each other's Cxcesses. The stagehand­
however essential to the s uccess of the performance - is lIsually uncostumed
and relates directly to the masked figure . making no attempt to draw the
attention 01' the auJ ience to himself and often, in fact , ignoring the crowd:
The masked figure is accompanied by a custodian who kads it
¡nto the performing area while striking a sma1l double hand gong.
Occasiona1l y he may speak to the creature to coax it into dancing
01' to warn it against unruly conduet.
[ . . . ] I ts dance finished , the mask is led out 01' the crowd by its
custodian [ ... ].
( Fétrdon 1990: 156 57)
W hilc rll lfll hng the 11Isk IIr g llidillg Ihe l11a ~"cd lif lll C, Ihe stagchu nd is
SCCI1 as:ln nrdillllry. l'wryduy pCl'son , ill CPlll r:I'l1 111 1111 ' 1IIII Iaslkal nt a:;kl'd
'H
P R US l: N r I N (i A N P R 1: - P IU ! ~ JI N r I N <.; r 11 1: S E I JI
11 1' 111'\':. In this way, the sc1f-effacing performalll;e contributes to the mystique
.It I he masquerade ch aracter, which purports to beha ve unpredictably.
111 IlI"dcr to be perceived as possessing the unpredictab[e quality associated
wlth supernatural status, the masked figure must be seen to /leed to be
, IIlItrn1led:
Within the context of Lo Gue [ ... ] it is incumbent o n the directors
01' lhis masking organisation to control these potentially dangerous
dements 01' its personali ly [ . .. T10 this end a host 01' talismans will
be tucked into the hamba-da, the ta1l peakcd white caps worn by the
\cad griots who play and dance for Gy in/1a-G)'illna and tied to the
waist 01' the attendants of these masked figures. Only tbe Gyinna­
G)'illlla require human guides , two stron g young men who hold onto
a slurdy ro pe tied to the waist of lhe djinn. N o other Lo G ue mask
requires such attention for no other has the independence ofmind or
the inherent power to lash out at the living \Vho come to observe this
honorific performance.
(Bravmann 1977: 52)
!hus, in spite 01' the deliberate absence of visual signals (costuming, beha­
vior, etc.) the stagehand is drawn into the "i nformational structure" of the
pe rformance . Why then is it useful to caH him a "stagehand," suggesting a
Il'dlllical, unseen role, if he is in fact obliquely part 01' the narrative o r
, haracterization'! Firstly and crucially, the possibility 01' unruly behavior is
n~lIl~ the masked figure in certain circumstances is at liberty to behave in an
11 r alional manner and to cause, perhaps, actual physical harm to people
(I) n:wal 1992: 98). Secondly, the masked figure's vision is restricted. Th us,
I 'Iuggcst that the primary function of the stagehand is practical and the
¡I\.,!)thetic or spiritual interpretations follow the need for such a figure onstage
\V II h lhe masked figure . tlowever, the aggressive characteristics of the masked
hglll'l~, the central performer, may be extended to its atlendants \Vith " real ,"
III1I1H:diate effects on the audiences, as among the Chamba: " A braided rope,
tlll' lail 01' the creature, may be woro down lhe back of the masked figure or
d "l.' \.'arried by an attendant who uses it as a whip to strike al bystanders"
ti ardon 1990: 151 ; plate 1) .
Whilc the functional and spiritual combine on occasion in the role of
tlll' sta gchand. there is abo a further layer of meaningful personal activity
IIlvolved. In those instances where the stagehand 's task as guide , protector,
111 a lfl.:nd anl has heen ac\.'ollllllodated within the inforlllational structure, the
0 11 11 1:'- Im.: n \Vilo are lhe su pporlers 01' thcse masks are themsclves delllon­
,11 a t in)!, pcrsol1 ul ultrib utcs. such llS sll -:nglh l) r!i k ill. T hcy are simultaneousl y
h" I/lg IL'trl plo tccto lS lInu disp/((I 'itlg lit,· sl'l{ in :In advan lHgeo us m anner. In
m ll ll cl ins l;IIICC an: tlrcy l/c /i/l,!: 111 11 11' ~l'll'l' 111 adll pl lllg a chara.clcr other
tlr ,llI "Il' 1I tl W II h llt t!ley alc / 1¡'I /"II/ II/lI'
"
 IDLN I II"Y i\Nll IIJ1. SI : 1,1:
Sapo daytime masks, which ¡¡ re controlleu by associations 01' young
warríor-agc men, are said to be "pulled" that is takcn from the forest
and brought to town for festi ve occasiollS d uring the dry season. The
ability to control these a nthropomorphic bush creat ures dcmonstrates
¡he ohysica/ powers (1/1(1 prOlVess r!! /he young n/en ¡n \lo/ved.
(Lifschi tz J988: 223; íla lics added)
A link to speech is another o ption for these non-acting performers:
The "bush" spirits orate, recite poetry amI sing, all in self-disguised
voices. They may have a "speaker" or assistant accompanyj ng them
who repeats their wo rus in normal specch [ . .. J.
(Lifschi tz J988: 223)
Describing the perfo rmances of four masked figures among the G a de
peo ple 01' northern Nigeria, Shuaibu Na ' ibi notes that:
None of these four [ .. • ] speak in such a way that people can
lInderstand what they are saying, but they p ut someth ing in their
mouths which makes them sounu like a bird whistling. Whenever
they appear, their follo\Vers accompany them, showing them the way
and transJating what they are saying- for they do not like the people
to know that jt is only aman in side t he [ ... ] costume.
(Na'ibi 1958: 297)
The second modaJity: support pcrformers and lead perforrncrs
So far [ have considered those persons whose onstage roles have largely
been restricted to heing /here anu being either self-effacing 01' supporti,-c: to
restraining violence in the masked figure or even dispJaying potentiaJ violence
themselves, There is however a second category 01" support performer. While
these roles requirc more hig hly developed skills, the primary I"ocus 01" the
performance rema ins with the Iead characters. These performers then move
from the first point on K irby 's continuum--nonmatrixed--to the second
point where they occupY a state 01" "symbolized matrix ": their costume, roJe,
or presence is recognized as being within the orbit of deliberately presenting
the sclf in a specia l way, though still not as o/her than the self.
Support performers
This second m oda lily requires perro rll1crs lO have real skills th at present the
sel !" advan tagco u.sly. Recog.lli7CU as skillful ami cnlnt aining in thcir own
righ t, they II se lite oppo rlun ily 1(1 prcsCn l lhC JIIM:lves Sll ;¡s lu ga in rccognil io n
ami appl allse rol' Ihe ir s ~ i ll 'l Sl ill lik c IlIl' ~till'c lJ ; IJl d · rl· 1 for mer, they are
¡II
PIUSLN 'I IN lj AN URE - PR E-; EN flN (j .. IIE SI ~ I . I'
]'1 illlarily therc as support for the central characters. T hey do not upstage
n: l1 tral performers and may perform separately and seq uentially from the
kad characters. Their function remains dependent 00 the presence ofthe lead
Jwrrormer and it is th is that distinguishes them from the lead performers.
The Tiv people of cen tral Nigeria have an el aborate puppet theatre called
1, lI'agh-hir. meaning " something wo nderful. " These a re usua lly alJ-night per­
lormanees that take place duri ng the dry season. They are m ixed-media
I'wnts with puppetry , masquerades, singers, dancers, and others, including
lIJe shuwo (narrator) and the or-u.l'ZI (fire-man) whose Ila ming to rch ligh!s up
lIJe acting arena and leads the conceaJed puppeteers in their mobile stages
around the perimeter so that each seetion orthe audience can see. The puppet
stage or dogbera is about the size of an average dining table and has enclosed
sides concealing t he puppeteers underneath (plates 2 a nd 3). The puppets
pcrform 011 the top surfacc but the enclosed sides 0 1' the dagbera restríet
vision so much that ditTerent sounds as well as light are used to guide lhe
]luppetcers as they mancuver the mobiJc stage around to two or three stop­
Jling points in the performance arena. Thc limited sightlines from the dagbera
JIlean that the or-usu must call out lo the conceaJcd puppeteers to let them
know where to go and brandish his to rch in front of the small holes in the
front of the dagbera. The shu wa performs between acts, announcing t he next
\lne and then standing on the sidelines during tbe performa nce .
Tbese o{'- usu are not self-effacing characters like the masq uerade guides we
l'onsidered earlier. On the contrary, they make mueh of the opportunity to
display their virtuosity. 1t is the or-USll, or fire-man , who, with his flamin g
torches, provides a leading light to the hidden puppeteers. Like the mas­
qllerade guides, he is technically essential for the expedient fulfillment of the
performance (plate 4); unlike thcm , he is expected to injeet his performance
with personal skills that entertain the audience and contribute substantially
to the success of the production.
In these puppct performances, there is also a group of singe rs and some­
times dancers-o ften older women- who provide a sung accompaniment to
the puppet sho\\! as well as songs during interludes between each act. Most
important, however, is the shllwa , or narrator, who precedes eaeh act with a
précis of it. Li ke the dancers or singers and the or-usu at a kwagh-hir show,
the shllwa - who can be either aman 01' a woman- deliberately presents the
scll"as a skilled performer. Thus in a puppet performance the dancers, singers,
lhe shllwa, and the or-usu are presenting the sell" as skiJled performers, but
remain suppo rt performers to the puppets and rnasquerades.
In addition lo skilled support pcrformcrs, there are of course a whole host
01' ski lled , Ilon-acling lead pel' fo rmers . Leau performers are those whose acts
ami d i ~r la ys 01' sk ill a re the prilllary l"nclI s ~)r lhe entertain ment. Among them
ar\! acn lbab, JU Ill;crs, an ima lla J1l..:rs. blnry lcllc.:rs. m usici ans, sna ke cha rmers,
st rlmg mcn, r ra isc singcn;. p ll rrl!'el·I~ . ,111,1 Jl Hlsqllerad cr::.;. W ithin K irby' s
cllJllinllll m. I IJ es~ pcrJ'o rtlli.:rs huvl: 11 111 w l Illl)Vl'd J'r om "p n:sc Jlting lIJe s~lr "
:1
 I IHN 1 I J' " A N I I I'II E S I ' •• '
PRE S EN T IN G AND R E - P R E S E NTlN G T Il E S E LF

to p rcsc nting <.In "o thc r." Ncvcl t hclcss, it is dillindt ror the performers to
m a intain él " no n-acting" r osltiOI1 as tlwy dClll ollslratc t!leir skills,
Thc 1c~l d pcrformer
The non-acting Icad perfo m lCr p rcsents the self in a spccific skil/ed role sueh
as dance r, singer, tig h lrOpe w,lIke r. w restler, storyteller. ventriloquist, or musi­
cian Their inlention is to dra w atten Liün to their ski lis, to themselves, and to
en lertai n t he audience, FOf exa mple. a pe rfo rmer can develop a lead role in a
ventriloquist's aet:
It is only when a performer replaces him- or herself with an illusion that
'"acting" is said to take place. R ichard Schechner has observcd that pe r­
rormers are " no t-themselves " and "not not themselves" (1985: 6) and Marvin
( 'arlson restates t his, asserting th at, within the p lay frame, a perform er " is
Ilut herself (becau ~e of the ope ra tions 01' illusion), but s he is a lso not n o t
hnself (beca use 01' the o perations of real it y). Perfo r m e r and audience aJike
,)perate in a world of do ublc consciousness" (1996; 54).
111 usion h owever is not oste nsibly a featllre of the performance 01' the
:Icrobat, who se physical suppleness challenges the restraints 01' human phys­
Illgnomy a nd p roduces awe and wonder in the s pectator:

In an o pen spa ce [ . . ,J t WQ long sto ut stakes are driven into the

At Hen sha w town , C a la bar, a eelebra ted pla y is so m etimes given at
earth , fo rked or n o tched a t the e nds. Bel wcc n the m, from top to topo
the ti m e 01' the fuI l m oon . A si ngle slend e r pole is fi xed in the ground.
a long palm-stem is laid, a nd Upon th is él row 01' small fetishes [sic]
Up this aman cl imbs till he reaches the to p , whc n he stan ds on the
are earef ully balanced, one by o ne. T h e n tom-toms [sicJ are beaten,
point and dances i.e., sways to an d fro, rippling rhe musc1es ofbaek
at first slowly and softly but \Vi t b eve r increasing rhythm. When the
and waist, and waving his arm o[ . .. J A fler a while he c1imbs d own
m usie grow~ loud and fast , th e li Ule ¡dols [sicJ begin to dance and
head foremost, ol' springs from the top, turning two somersaults
talk with the voice of aman, Eggs can also be made to talk in a
sim ilar manner. before reaching the ground.
(Amaury T aIbot 1923: 75)
(Amau ry T albot 1923: 75-76)
Similarly, in the st rcets of Nairobi there a re young b o y performers wh o
Alternatively, the performer may demonstr ate skills in relation to specifie
,':111 bend over backwards, stand on their hands. and by b ringing t heir feet
animals, as for example at an agrieultural show in Sokoto province, Nigeria,
1hrough the space bet ween their anns and the ground, h old a matchbox in the
held in the 1950s, where the "hyena-tamers and snake charmers and magicians
Illcs of one foot and a match in those of the other and light it. They have
all come to per form" (Nigeria Magazine 1958: 339). Similarly, in Oshogbo,
.)1 her tricks such as being able to bend over backward and "walk" their feet
Nigeria, at the festival for Shango, m a ny different forms 01' entertainment are
Illore than half\Vay around their body. Anothcr examp1c is found among the
described , inc1uding " tub-thumping"- of a literal sort:
(IV people ol' Nigeria where acrobats can fold up their body into the most
.'\1 reme contorted positions so that they themselves fit onto a shallow disc the
Pestles and mortar normally used for grinding cassava are properties
.I /e nI' a chair seat. Everywhere men- a nd women , but less so - jugg1c and
in this act. Confederates pound heartily \Vhilst Strong Man holds a
mortal' on his chest. IJo,' lld and spring and in so doing create the il1usion of doing the impossible.
11111 it is an illusion beca use it is possible: they do it. To this extent, the
[ .. ·1 Th e strong man is al so the tumbler and contortionist as ,I('robat is also drawing attention o nly to him- or herse1f-····bllt doing it not
well. [ ... J
olfl ly through the display 01' skill like the singer or musician, but, like the
(D .W.M. 1953: 302-(3) .11 11 ytel1er, through the creation ol' an illusion. It is. however, a double iI1usion
111:11 is created by the acrobat. Whereas for the storytel1er the element 01'
The magician toys directly \Vith illusion-- employing sleight ofhand to givc
11, 'liol\ is p ri m ary in the content ofthe display, for the acrobat, the element 01'
an impression of shifting things in an impossible sequenee. Again, it is the
lU' rillll is a b se n t, for sLlch perfonners are the "subject of the performance"
creation ofan illusion that is dependent on actual sk ill and Bernard Beckerman
notes that: 111;¡rTOp 1992: 5).
111 1he u ll-d ay salla parade that fo ll o \\ls th e ending of Ramaddan in K a tsina,
Ih lr , hcrIl N ige,ria . <Llll o ng the hu nu rco ¡; 01' pe rfo rlllers are sco res 01' young
He (the Imlgicia n) CTeates :so con vint;ing <In illusion 01' aClua li ty tIlat
111 \ ' 1\, l'ellI /ul/,.i (t o ug h g Ll YS), who draw sha rp k nivcs a m i swords across their
our eyes a c(;ep t w ll a! o ur rnin ds lw k l in abcY<l m:c. Ir is Ihis c o nl~ iC l
1'1111: iilvl1 l<1c !t:; Wit!1{) ll t .:utt ing Ih':lllsd .. \~s . A l Ihe S<l lll e time, a hi gh- pilched
bClwcen cyC!\ <1m'! mind s rh al r rod llcés l b\.: "\,,'n \~ orwOI ul".. in uso
.r(IH." I ~ i ll g is c n li ltcJ a ppan:llll y 1111111 ,1 lill y ~1, ll l " U t hu t c¡u;1l pe rrormc r
(1 990: 11 ) {¡I "h.:~s l ll n l,J. 01 1 his w risl; 11,' hnldl-i 1111 11 1"1111 \' ;llId il!Ilcl.! lu sc~ Iha l \re is no'

1"
1'1
 II)INIII'Y t\NI, 1' 111 :-lH I. I·
sqllcezi ng or rubbing il lo prodlJ(;l.! tillo! tl ll isc. Tllc dailll is that the noise
happens <llllOmalically when Ihc kllirc louchcs Iho bare Ilesh . Whatever the
truth of the tcchnique, the illusion tha! there is a dircd rclationship between
Ilesh. noisc, and knife makes im pressive enterlainment. It is quite different
from the snake charmer in the samc parade, wh o lifts the snake and places its
head into his mouth . In this case, there is no illusion- the snake really is in his
mouth- but the entertainment is no less impressive.
There is another category ofperformer whose skill is based not on illusion
but on a kind 01' reality that elevates the mind of the Iistener, and is appla uded
for that. This particular category is very fully developed in fhe role of the
omio/w in ¡doma inq uest inq uiries. T he ¡doma people Iive in central Nigeria.
In ¡doma soeiety, after a death, an inquiry is held 10 find out who is respons­
ible ror lhe death . This is nol undertaken in order lo ascribe blame but to find
oul the social reason for the death.
The omioko were young men wilh good , vibrant, resonate and
powerful voices. They had learned their art through obscrvation
and participation ami olhcr modes of training. The omioko knew
lhc society and ils traditions very \Vel!. They were the agents
th ro ugh which Ihe parlieipants spoke both to each other and to the
s pecta l \ )J·S.
(Amali 1985: 23)
The verbal play of the ol11ioko is an example of a key . skilled support role .
The omioko is able to move around the inquest arena, not aligning himself
spatially or ideologically with any Caction , but "moving from one participant
to the next in lhe order in which they spoke" (Amali 1985: 23). tu his role, the
omioko control s order and focuses the attention of the speakers and the
spectators on lhe performance of the inquest.
The omioko is dearly at the critical midpoint of change on the continuum
ranging rrom support to 1ead characters. He is an essential character but
supposedly only as a transmitter, not creator, 01' information. He does not
move the narrative forward; he does not, theoretically, contribute to lhe
substance of the proccedings. 1lis role is to amplify, e1aborate, modify the
substantive statements from leading participants in the inquest. Yet there
could be no inquest without the omioko, ror as Amal i notes: "The omioko's
functions added formality and dignity lo the occasion " (1985: 23). By his skill
and knowledge of the participants and their circumstances and lhe hislory
of the families involved, he not only orchcstrales the procccdings, but may
su btly direct thcm as wel!.
An othcr performcr who ralls int o Ihis calcgmy. b ul s\.l mew hal di rrerently.
is thc storyleller. who inlrod tU:es a nothcr demcnl i!ll tl Ihe c:xpcricnce. Slo ry­
Icllcrs are rccol?nized anJ apprccilllcd bC¡;a II SC 0 1' Ilwir ~ pel'i al skills in Ihe art
01' I/II/TII(illg T II\: (¡'//il/g 01' lile n; lI ra tiv\..' is 11)(' Jll'I~ (\II;¡1 s~ il l lo which Iho
l\
I'R l i SI N IINl j t\ NI> J{h- I' RI': SI N l ' I N( j TIIL SLU:
,,11 Yldlers wanl lo draw the allenlion of the audicncc; it takes place in the
111 "',cII I Icnse 01' lhe performance. There is howevcr also the conlent of tbe
Ill"\ '" lIIance, which may take place in the past or future or in imagined time.
111 11 " as with song, m usic, and (10 sorne extent) dance, the content ca.n be
Il'pleo.:iated separately from the performer and the performance. In slorytelI­
III~' Ihcrc is an emphasis on the non-teal elemenls beca use this req uires in the
1I1111d ~ nI' the lisleners the creation of images and characters who do nol exist
111 d phcnomenological for111 for the audience. The storyteller, as John B arrop
PIII'> il, is "speaking in his own person" (1992: 5). Yet if.- o r as- he moves in
IlId out ofcharacterization as the plot progrcsses, from ti me to time he can be
.lId lo he "acting" in the sense of impersonating an other. Beckerman draws
I dlslinction betweeo what he calls tilose acts 01' skill that exist to displ ay
k IIls and those that exist to displ ay skills in order to " achieve ao emotion al
h ... ]lOIlSC." Whereas the flrst category exists for itself and provokes a response
,.\ awc and wonder, the lalter, or " what I call lhe illusory or fictive show
IIh: ludcs the display 01' skill but shadows a second realm in the exercise of the
PI'I~'eplible skil!. I t is such a double-imaged aet that js the basis or drama"
I II)I)(): 16).
I'his can be dearl y seen in Lele Gbomba's performances:
, ... ] Gbomba's t,heater di rnjn ished cverything b ut the domeigbuamoi.
111 lhe coursc of his prologue, he stri pped himself of his gown. his
shocs, his shirt · everything bui a pair 01' blue shorts and a lappa 01'
c1oth. and a headtie. which were his only props. Thus, stripped dO'vvn
lo his wiry agi1e rrame, a plastic face with enormous eyes, and an
incrcdible modulated voiee, Lele Gbomba became his pantheon: a
whorish mincing senior wire. brushing off patting hands with out­
raged stares and Iimp-wristed swats; a pompous mallam dispensing
Icdious sententiae to his followers; an English colonial officer stiffly
cOlllplaining in military eadence: "Oh my God , oh , very much , what?
Oh light, oh light oh God , my Fa rber!"
(Cosen tino 1980: 55)
Many storytellers assist their audiences to imagine the characters abollt
whom they speak by characterizing them in voice and body movement. Thus,
whik Ihe sloryteller is real, those aboul whom the audience hears may not be
leal. This involves i//usio}1- the creation 01' perceptions, sensations, expecta­
II PIIS. and resolutions about characlers who do nof actually exist and aboul
,'Vi: llls whidl are not actually taking place. Yel the experiences of the audi­
,'lIl.'l' are real cnough- fcar, laughler. sadness. Thc bcst of rhe slorytellers
I 1I ~· It , Iike Ihe dancer a nu lhe m llsician and Ihe singer, presents her/himself as
1111' ..:cnlra.1 fi g llrl' nI' Ihe perrorma nce, íl nd hrin g inlo illuso ry being a wh o le
1.1I1 gC oi" chUrHCkrs who ru ll1ll lhc I\illlal ivc Not all , howcvl.!r, are equa lly
ror
.k i IIcd. ex :! mplt!:
\..,
 "l/ NI ' " " 11 11 '; 1 1 1
nea rl y cvcryolle in Mc ndchlll d WI II lH'l l II l1 d IIléil, chiers a nd ehi Idren
- e()u ld ami d id pcrrnrnl lhest: dIJ/I/('i.1I11 I ... l.
Only <1 lew Mcnde bcea llle crca li vc r crhll'lners 01' dOl/lei.l'ia. and
fewer still earn the name ordolllcixhuall1oi, or "pullas" 01' the domei.
(Cosen tino 1980: 54)
Not all storytclling, 01' eourse , requires the same dcgree of dramatization
a nd Speneer (1990) ma (.. es a distinetion betwcen the M ende ngmvovei historie
na rratives in whieh there is no embellishment 01' dramatization and the
domei. Each requires a different performing style a nd has different aims . The
former is delivered in a straight manner. the latter wi lh as m ueh elaboration
as the storyteller chooses.
The tbird modality: "act yourseJf"
Up until now. r have been considering modaJities 01' performing in which the
element 01' pretenee, impersonation, and feigning is minimal o r intermittent.
Nevertheless, each modality can be discerned from O!'dinary, everyday aet
ivities: the activity is cJearly speciaJized, differentiated , and entertaining.
Regardless of either the increasing level 01' skill required or of their status
as support or lead roles, all fall within Ki rby's first stage of the continllum:
nonmatrixed perfQrming. The performers are people being themselves,
presenting the self in a special way .
I,¡!',clher al high points of entertainment in a display designed to draw the
Kirby then defines the next point
111l'nlion ofthe young men to the young women and vice versa. For both the
As we movc toward acting from thi s extreme non-acting position on
the continllum, we come to that condition in which the performer
does not aet and yet his or her costume represents something or
someone. We could eall this a "symbolized matrix ."
([1972]1995: 44)
This " symbolized matrix" is often encountered when local people in local
dress are seen by visitors for the fi rst time and who may describe the locals
as being " in costume" whereas actually the local people are j ust "dressed. " An
extreme example ofthis- and one wh ieh gained sorne internationalnotoreity­
was apparent in the presen tation orthe selfpracticed by the Nuba people 01'
the southern Sudan whose display ofthe social ized selfwas taken to one form
of aesthetic perfection_
Nuba people have developed an aesthetic display 01' the self in order to
celebrate the young hea lth y body , wh ich is lhe prercq uisite fo l' personal
survival and for the surv iva l 01' the gwup in lhe urio ~{ln ú il ions 01' thc
southeast Nu ba mOll ll la ins (Faris 1978). II is a ronn o r s~ U:- pn!SCn l a l iol1lhal
is limited lO Ihe nOn rHnllilll:( dl y scasOl l umlt n tll l' h l l"'~' villages. T h us il ca n
he ~ a i d lhal lhc rl' i.'; ;¡ ele:1I thca ln: 0 1' ¡ll'I IVII\ :1111 1 iI d '::1I dUl'alion 01'
'l!
I'IU iS' i N ' I N ( ¡ A NU H L I'IHS' N II N I , III L S li t 1,
1" 1¡-,IIIII:lI\I.:C wilhin lhe h ()llI~ cullure . rhc fücu s nI' lhe perro rmance is on thc
I' h \,. I~'lI lily of' lhe young people, esscn tiallo lhe survival 01' thc society .
1hel'c a re dilferenl \'Í:sual art con vcntions for men and wOlllen. Girls are
1'lllI lIlll'd rmlll an eady age to apply el mixture of oil and either yellow or red
,,,1111' day over themselves. The choice of color is regulatcd by the clan
tl llha tlllll 01' the girl. Access to the use of this col or is a permanent option
lit ,1 vit l's lile. although she is unli kely to use jI after her own famiJ y is well
, ',l.l hlished. As well as coloring, girls are also subjec t to a series of one-off
Inllll s 01' body decoration . which is carried out in three phases. As she
,k \ dllPS physically, the girl receives her nrst set of cicatrizations below her
hll''''ls; at lhe onset ormenses, she receives a second set around her navel and
I( IIISS her stomach. finally after the birth of her first child and as the child
1, wcalled, she receives the third and final set over her entire back and
J¡, "t1ders. Unlike her socially determined coloring. this decoration is linked
111 1\'clly to the girl's biologieal development into a physicall y mature woman.
Whl'lI:as the cicatrization is linked lO the performance of socia l roles, biol o­
'1l: t1ly delermined. the applieation of coloring and oil over the perm a nent
,In tllalion is often done in preparation for the dances that take plaee in
1I 111J1Inction with, and foll owing, the displays of fighting by the young meno
Solo summarize the proccdures for the women: first , they have permanent
l(·L'l.'SS from an ca rly age to temporary coloring and then a one-off access to a
'I'tj lll'nee of permanent markings. These two forms of personal display come
\,tl lln).!, women and the young meno these dances are opportuni ties to cnjoy
IhCllIscJves.
In contrast , tho young men do not receive permanent ma rk ings but do ,
IhWlIgh a system of age grades. gradually acquire the permanent right to
.Ipply to their bodies temporary clay markings or pattcrns 01' specific colors.
Ihis is done very frequentl y througho ut the dry season---sometimes more
111:111 lwice in a day. The color range permitted to the young men keeps pace
\Vilh their age so access to the full range incrcases steadily. The applied design
Ihclr may be very temporary and sometimes is kept on the body for only a
Inv hours before the young Illan decides to try out another designo A1though
I he ri ght to use the full range of colors, once acq uired , is forever, in praetice
kw I11cn apply the coloring after their most physically perfcct years have
pu ssed. A specifk range of hairstyles for men is similarly Jinked to age and
'. lallls allll is a longer-lasting, though not permanent. form of decoration and
Idelll il¡tation . Thc body and face designs are a personal choice and have no
JI~ I sonal ritual significa nce. but lhe hairstyles a lthough they too are per­
',\) l1 al d lQit.-c dl) have :'iQcial signi lica nce. In perfo rma nce, na tural physical
,1 1t I ih ul Cs cnhancl:d by arl ilkc. v.did:l led hy ~o(; ial status and presentad in a
d isplay l I t' skill . erca tc ¡m acstl ll: llc C\ III I I1I11 ¡ Il~' w lo r élnd ki nes is in balaneed
'I',ym 111 ('1ry.
\'1
 ID I: N IT . " A N 11 I-'m SII I l '
Thesc adl vltlcs 01' self-Jecorali o n COlls lil ll !l: what Kirby has called a
"symbolized matrix " ami, at tite poin t whcn the decoration and its purpose
reach their apogee in the dances. lhey come ¡nto the category of presentin g
the self " in a special way" (M lIde 1983: 2).
The Nu ba people expe rienced in a particlllarly traumatic way the effects 01'
outside interference. In the 1970s. Leni Riefenstah l, a G erman photographer
famous for her film 01' the 1936 O lympi c Games. recorded 0 0 film the per­
sonal body art ofthe yo ung N uba peoplc. /-Ier photographs were published in
two ve ry grapbic book.5, The Last ()/ !he Nuha a nd The People o/ Kau, which
becam e very popular outside the Suda n and brougbt about slIbstantial social
chan ges t o the Nuba people. Among these was a steady infl ux of mai nly
German tou rists who came to see the young men self-decorate and paid them
to do it. The Nuba people's awareness ofthei.. potential to use their ordinary
practiee as an entertainment gTew and was recorded on the BBC fi lm SOUI/¡­
E astenJ N uha (J 982) as they decorated for tourists and for the camera crew.
At one point, on being criticiz ed by his peers for applying a particular color
and pattern in the wrong order, a young Nuba man answers, " Oh it will do
for the G ermans, " referring to the BBC television crew as "Germans"- the
audience to which lhey had become most accustomed. This demonstra1es a
clear understanding of the altered practicc of self-decoration and of his own
altered role as a painted youth.
Nuba Pllblic self·decoration practices have reduced in subtlety of expres­
sion as the role of the outsider has had an i.ncrca sing impact cm the societ)'.
Nuba people had to accommodate their own perception and practice of
body decoration and the accompanying fights and dances to a new group of
people, defined only as spectators. These spectators did not have the insider
knowledge to see the young people as symbolically matrixed with reference
primarily to the rest of Nuba society. This has shifted some Nuba self­
decoration practices to a different level ofmeaning. The body painting is now
often carried out as entertainment for outsiders, its meaning for the insiders
submerged. The process (self-decorating) and the product (decorated men)
have become a performance. Thus the means (body painting) lo the end
(display 01' self to peers, ensuring the $urvival of the group) is seemingly no
longer the objective 01' Ihe practice. Practitioners are no longcr carrying out
the decoration with a view to identifying themselves within the Nuba group
as young, strong, and healthy (F aris 1972) amI simultaneously as an aesthetic
work , but as people who paint their bodies - albeit with a careless reference
to aesthetics. They have moved from doing things \Vith a combined aesthetic,
social, and physical focus as part 01' their experience of growing up and
growing older in Nuba socie ty lo doing t hese things in ord er to fulfill an
eXlernally del111cd role. T he original mcaning i ~ ignored . It is not 10SI ()r
cha nged, nor (possih ly) h"1S il hccomc obslIll'Il!; it is jllst deli bera tely heing
ignorcd. Peo ple IHIVC sclcctcd rm m tlll.!il d a ily pllll'lit:-:s clcll1 enls th at. once
iSI)lalcJ. ta kc 1)11 ncw II h::.tllillgS
IX
I' IU:Sl:NJ JNti ANn IH-I' IU I1H:N I' IN(i TlIE SE LI '
1'I1~' Nllba practices are Ihose in which people are calTying out actions
''''"lnly cmbedded in a social matrix but in which, to the stranger's eye, the
p,'l lilrlllativc elemcnts dominate and can be isolated, extrapolated, and re­
pH·se llted. Implicit in this percept,i on is the notion of strangeness, of dis­
'''"Iilarity to the cultural practices of the observer, and congruence with the
Ilhsnvcr's expectation of the observed- all convergi ng through the power 01'
Ih ~' slranger's eye and p ll rse to rede.fine and recon tex tualize. T hus, while in
IlIl' o riginal context the activity may fallunder the catego ry of " sym bolizcd
111 ,-" tú." as the performer comes to do it more and mo re for reaso ns other
111,11 1 "bcing" or " becoming," it is transfonncd into a presentational aetivity, rn
Ild iherately seeking to fulfill a predetermined role and a temporarily reclefi ned
hk lllily, the aetions come c10ser to ·'aeting." A s Kirby describes it:
In a symbolized matrix the referential elemen ts are a pplied to but
lIot acteel by the performer [ ... 1As " recei ved" references increase ,
however, it is difficlllt to say that the performer is nol acting even
Ihough he or she is doing nothing that coulc! be defl ned as acting.
I ... ] When the matrices are strong, persistent and reinforce cach
other, we see an actor, no matter how ordinary the beha vior. This
condition, the next step closer to true acting on our eoo lin uum, we
lila)' refer to as "received acting."
(45)
When the nonmatrixcd performers are situated in such a way th at obser­
H'fs perceive them as "performing," then , in ,~pile (~/how they may percei ve
Ihl'lllsc1ves, the performers move c10ser to what Kirby has called " received
Il lillg. " Initially framed by Reifenstahl's camera, the men's body decoration
tlraclices constituted " received acting." /-Iowever, taking control of the
n pportunity, the Nuba men, in lheir redefined practice ol' self-decoration.
Wl'Il1 rurther. As soon as they opted to self-decorate for olltsiders, they moved
" 0 111 perceiJ1ed acting - what Kirby calls "received acting"- to what he calls
:, Im ple acting" in which an clement of pretence is deliberalely employed.
1:01' lhe cameras and for the outsiders, the N LIba men were " acting" o.\' the
NI/hu 11/('11 delined hy Reif'en.l'lo/¡/'.\· pie/tire.\'; they could also simultaneously
IIlIl'I'act with each other in asides (even when still within Lhe acting arena)
,J\ /I/(' NI/ha menlhey "real/y " were- intending to eat and drink , to enjoy them­
,dws. to shop at the market with the money they were earning by "acting" as
1!t"/I/.1'I'/I'(,.\· rOl' lhe outsiders. Acting became the \vork-task (Goffman 1959:72),
wlth Ihe acts themselves, based on lhe older practices, adjusted to mee! the
IIL'W J Cln al1 tls:
1 1I f\ ( ~a J \Ir merely J lling hi s lask ,llId giving venl to his feelings . he
will \: ,~pn:ss Lhe J~lillg 01' hi'l t:L~k illHI aCCl' plahly n lll vcy his feclings.
111 )\1,;1 1\': 1011 IlIcll , tht.' r~'flI'CSl'lI l ill lí\1I p i :111 ilL'livilY will vary in sUllle
~. J
 PR l Sl'N lIN(; A NI) IU I- I'lt IS IIN II N f, 1 111 ;. SU l'
II IIN I I I ' -\ N I1 I III. ~ III

lkg rCl: rmlll lhl: al,;!ív il y itsd l' ;llld Ihl'lo:lllll." tlll'vll ahly Illisrcprcse nt
ilo A no si nuc t he individual will be Icq uin: d III Idy (JI! sigl1s in order
to construct el reprcsen Laliol1 01' his aCl ivil Y, Ihe illlage he constructs,
however fai thful to the facts, will be slIbjecl to all the disruptions
that impressions are subjcct too
(Goffman 1959: 72)
Although the "worktasks" (Goffman 1959: 72) have changed, they are work­
1.11,\ 1111 /, 1:' .. 1')88. " I lcaring Is I3c licvi ng: f\Cllllsti, 1'.1asks amI Spirit Manifcstatioll."
111 11 ,'.\'1 Aji'iml/ ,\4asks (JIU! C U!li./ral .s~I'.\·/('m.l', cditcd hy Sidncy L. Kasfir, 221 - 29.
1\ I \ lII'cn, Bc lgium: Muséc royal de I' A friquc ccntrale.
~llIdl' V.\. 1983. "The Tiv iVO/'l1 Dance. " N igeria Milgazille 54: 2.
'n 1\0, 1'.1. Shllaibll 1958. "The Gade Pcople of Abujet Emirate.'· Nigeriil Magaúne ,
,11 22~ .107.
¡ 11I\\' lI l' jl'ogWU, MichacJ 1969. " Tlle Cult of the Bori Spirits a mong lhe Hausa. " In
1',111 i/l AFiciI, cdited hy Ma.ry Douglas and Phyllis M . Ketberry, 279- 97. New
, \11 k: Tavistock.

tasks nonetheless. A move from farmer-hunter to actor has bccn made.
Note
I huve used the male pronoun throughollt as almost all pcrforrners are male cxcept
singers and daneers an d a few instrumentalists. The women 's Sande Society in
Sierra LCOllC is an exeeption to the practice of male masking.
I IW' lIbcrg, Simon 1975. Ma.l'kec! Riluals olAjikpo. SeaUle: University of Washington
l 'I" s ~ .
'" IlI'd lllcr, Richard 1985. Belweel1 The(/Ire ol1d AllIhroJ!ology . P hiletdelphia : Uni versity
,1 I'cllnsylvania Prcss.
"{II III.:.:r. Julius S. 1990. "Storytclling Thea.t re in Sierra Leone: The E xammple o f Lele
~ ¡\lomba." NelV Thealre Quarlerly 6, 24: :149 .. 56.
W" III\leh-Rashid , J. A. R. 1971. "Isinyagoand Midimu: Masked D ancersofTanzania
III J Mozambiquc." /lji-ican AI'I.\ 4, 2: 38 - 44.

Refcrences
Amali , S. O. O. 1985. Al! AI1('ienl Nigerian Drama. Stllttgart: Frannz Steiner Verlag
Wieshaden.
AmHury Talhot, Pe rey 1967119231. Lijé i/1 Sa/.llhern Nigeria. London: Frank Carr &
CO.
Beckemwn, Bernard 1990. Theatrico! Presenlo/üm: Perjilrmer, A udience. ({lid A el.
London: Routledge.
Blau, Hcrbert 1990. "Universals 01' Performance." In By Means 4Per!omwllce edited
by Richard Schechner and Willa Appcl, 250- 72. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bravmann . Rene A. 1977. "Gy·i nna-Gyinna: Making the Djinn Manifest." Aji-iclIl1
Arl.l' 10, :1: 45 - 50.
Carlson, Marvin 1996. Peljó/,///(/Ilce: A Critica! /¡1/rOdUCliol1. London: Routledge.
Cosenlino , Donald J. 1980. "Lelo Ghomba and the Style of Mende Baroque." Aji-icoII
ArlS 13,:1: 54- 55.
D. W. M. 1953. "Oshogbo Celebrates Festival of SH A NGO. " Nigeria /vloga::il1l'
44: 298- 313 .
DrewaJ, Margaret T. 1992. Yoruha Ri/Uo!: Perjórmers. Play. Agertey. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press .
Fardon, Richard 1990. Be/ll'een Cad. ¡he f)('ad (I/l{1 Ihe IVi!c!. Edinbllrgh: International
African Library.
Faris. James C. 1972. Nuha Personal Arl. Londoll: Duckworth.
Goffman, Erving 1959. The Presel1lalio/l o('SeU'ill Everyday Lijé. Garden City , NY:
Doubleday.
1I,t rrop , John 1992. Ac./ing. London: ROlltledge .
I 10rton, Robin 1960. "Gods as Guesb." Nigeria Mllga:::in(', Spccia l Issuc .
.l. O . N. 1958. Nig('ria MIIKa::illl' 59: :1:19 40.
K iTby, M icha !!1 I 'J"5 1I <¡n i. "011 A<.:lil1g amI Nol · A ~·1 illg.·· 111 .· I,·lil/.11 ( R,') CIII/lid('/'{'d,
c,htcd hy 1'J¡i lJlp Z al'l'ilJi .~ 1 ~K . !.<HHlo ll : Rl lll l bl l'.t·

11) 11
 /.2 Pe/:/o/'lIIiflK Idell lil)'
70
DOING DIFFE R ENCE
Candace Wesl and S usan Fens fermaker
Sourcc: Gender ami Sociely 9(1) ( 1<)')5): 8 17.
In this article, \Ve advance a new understanding 01' "difference"
as an ongoing interactional accomplishment. Calling on the
allthors ' earlier reconceptuali zation of gender, they devclop the
further implications 01' this perspective fo r the relatiollships
amonggender. mce, and class. The allthors argue that, despite sig­
nificant differenees in their charaeteristics and outeomcs, gender,
race , and class are comparable as mechanisms for producing
social inequality.
Few persons think 01' math as a particularly feminine pursuit. Girls are
not supposeo to be good at it ano women are not sllpposed to enjoy it. It is
interesting, then , that we who do feminist scholarship have relied so heavily
on mathematical metaphors to describe the relationships among gender,
race, and d ass . ' For examp le. some 01' us have drawn on basic arithmetic,
adding, slIbtracting, and dividing what we know about race and cIass to what
\Ve already know about gende r. Some have relied on multiplication, seeming
to ca1culate the effe<.:ts 01' the whole from the combination of different parts.
And others have employed geometry, dra\Ving on images of interlocking or
intersecting planes and axes.
To be sure, the sophisticat ion of our mathematical metaphors often
varies Wilh the apparent <.:omplexity of our own experiences. Those of us wh o.
at one point, were able to " forget" race a nd da ss in Our analyses 01' gend er
relations may be mo re Iikely lo "add" th ese al él la ler poin!. By contrast,
those of LI S who co uld never forget thcse d imensions ()!' soda l life may be
more likely to d r(J w on cOlllpll:x gC(lI1l\.:tri~¡¡ 1 i m ;l~cly all along; no nct hcless,
lhe exis tencc nI' so mil ny úilkn:n t a rpr(),,~ hcs f(l Ihc forie SI:CIIIS inu ica t ive 01'
the d i ll ic ullit:~ ¡III ,'1' liS h;lw (,;'(pt: ril!III;:l'd iJl rllllllllH 1" tel lllS with il.
l'
I)()IN(, DIITI;ItE NI'!-:
Not slIrprisingly, prolif'eration oC thcsc approachcs has caused consider­
. d ll~ cOllfusion in the existing litera lure. In lhe same book or article, we
III,IY fino rcfcrences to genoer, mce. and dass as "intersecting systems," as
• IIltnlocking categories," and as " multiple bases" for oppression. In the same
alll holugy, we may find sorne chapters that conceive of gender, race, and class
,l', distind axes and olhers that conceive ol' lhem as concentric ones. The
1IIIIhlem is that these alternative formula tions have very distinctive, yet
IIl1d rliculated. theoretical implicalions. F or instance, if we thin k aboul gen­
111". race. and e1ass as aoditive categories, the whole wiJI never be greater
(11' Icsser) than the sum 01' its parts. By contrast, if \Ve conceive of these as
11 111It iples, the result could be larger or srnaller than th eir added sum, depend­
2
111) ' 011 where \Ve place the signs. Geometric metaphors further co m plicate
111I1IgS. since we slill need to kno\\' where those planes ano axes go a fler lhey
'lllSS lhe point of intersection (if they are parallel planes amt axes, the y will
m'ver intersect at al1).
(h,r purpose in this artiele is not lO advanee yet another new math bul
1.. propose a new \\'a y of thinking aboul the worldngs of these relations .
l· hcwhere (Berk 1985; Fenslermaker, West, and Zimmerman 199 1; West and
I cnstcrmaker 1993; West and Z immerman 1987), we offered an ethnome­
Ihodologically informed , ando hence, distinctively sociological , conceptu­
.dl / alion of gender as a routine, methodical. and ongoing accomplishment.
\Vl' argued that doing gendcr involves a complex ofperceptual, inleractional,
II ld l1licropolitical activities that cast particular pursuils as expressions
di l1lanly and womanly "natures. " Ra ther than conceiving 01' gender a s
111 individual characteristic, we conceiveo 01' it as an emergent property 01'
iI 'l.'ial situations: both an outcome of and a rationale ror various social
IIf Iangements ano a means of justifying one of the most fundamental divi­
.I"IIS 01' society. We suggested that examining how gendcr is accomplisheo
"ollIJ reveal the mechanisms by which power is exercised and inequality
1/, produced.
(hlr earlier formulation neglecteo race and e1ass; thus , it is an incomplete
1',lI l1cwork ror understanding social inequality. In lhis articIe, we extend
"lIr analysis lo consider expli<.:itly the relationships among gender, raee.
II ld c!ass, and to reconceptualize "difference" as an ongoing interactional
. 1~·cl)lllplishment. We start by summarizing lhe prevailing critique 01' much
klllil1ist lhought as severely constrained by ils white middlc-cJass character
.lIul preoccupation. Here, \Ve consider ho", feminist scholarship ends up bor­
l"wing rmm ma lhematics in the flrst place. Next, '.. . e consider how existing
c·,)!1cc pluéllíza ti ons 01' gcndcr have conlrihuted to the problem . rendering
I lI ath cn J;lti ~a l 111l:laphors the o nly a ltc rna tives. T hen , caJJing on our earlier
1' lhll(llll C I I )(lJí~ I~)gi ~a l \.:o nccpt Lla li zal iol1 (Ir gcnder, \Ve- de velop the further
I" 'p licalilllls 01' t his ]1Cr ~ pcc li vc lúr 1)11 1 IIII Jc r~l ;)ndin g 01' race a mi dass . We
.1~!'iC' I Il la l. whi h.: gClldcr. ra~ :111\1da',,, \V ha t I~o pl c come lO expericncc as
11t 1'.;lIl il illg cillcpmics I\ r ~\lci:tl ~l i l l l' I~' l n, ' n hil ,il vaslly dirfe rclll ocscriptivc
1'\
 IIJI N 'II I' V ¡\NI I IIII ! SIi I. I'
ch aradcristics and oulco m cs, Ihcy a re. IHlIlct hc kss, cOlllparable as mechan­
isms ror producing social ineql.laliLy.
White middle-cJass bias iJl feminjst thought
What is it about feminist think ing that makes race and dass such difficult
concepts to articula te within its own parame te rs'? The most \Videly agreed
upon and disturbing answer to thjs question is that feminist thought suffers
from a w hite middle-c1as$ bias . The privileging of white and midd le-dass
sensibilities in feminist thought results from both wh o did the theorizin g and
how they did ir. Wh ite middlc-class \Vomen 's a d van taged viewpoint in a racist
and dass- bound culture, coupled with l he Weste rn tcnoe ncy to construct the
self as distinct from " othe r," distorts their dcpictions of reality in preoictable
directions (Young 1990). The consequences of thcse distortions have becn
ioentified in a variety of places, and analyscs of them have enlivencd evcry
aspect 01' reminist scholarship (see, for example, Aptheker 1989; Co"ins 1990:
Da vis 1981; 11 urtado 1989; Zinn 1990).
r or exampJe, be" hooks points out that feminism within the U n itcd Sta tes
has never originated among the women \Vho are most oppressed by sexism ,
"women who are daily beaten dowl1 . menta"y, physically, and spiritually­
\Vomen who are powerJess to change their condition in lire" (1984, 1). The fact
that those most victimized are least likely to question or protest is, according
to hooks (1984), a conscquence oftheir victimization . F rom this perspective.
the \'ihite middle-c1ass character ofmost feminist thought stems directly fro m
the identities of those who produce it.
Aída Hurtado notes further thc requisite time and resources that are
involved in the production of feminist writing: " without financial assistance,
few low-income and racial/ethnic students can attcnd l1niversities; without
higher education, few working-c1ass and cthniclracial intellcctuals can become
professors" (1989, 838). Given that academics dominate the production of
published feminist scholarship, it is not surprising that fcminist theory is
dominatcd by whitc, highly educated women (see also hooks 1981 ; Joseph
and Lewis 1981).
Still others (Collins 1990; Davis 1981 ; Lorde 1984; Moraga and Am:alduá
1981; Zinn , Cannon , Higginbotham , and Dill 1986) point to the racism and
classism of fel1linist scholars themselves. Max ine Baca Z inn and her colleaglles
observe that, " dcspite white, middle-class feminists ' frcquent exprcssions of
interest and concern over the plight of minority and working-class women,
thosc holding th e gatekeeping positions a t importan t feministjournals are as
white as are those al any m ai nslream social sciel1ce o r h llmanities publication "
(1 986, 293) .
R acism amI dassism can lake a va riety 01' f0 n11S. I\dr iClIlIll R idl contcnús
thal. allhough w h ilc (m idd lc-dttss ) I'I!minis ls m uy II Ol l.'llll Scio llsly beli cvc lhal
Ihcir ral.'c is :-' lI pclior lo an y ol hc r. Ihey nn: nfll' n pl.ll'lIl'd bv a h ll'ln or "w h ill.'
Ijl
f) () I N {i () I Jo' 11: R L N (' 1:
'll lipsiSIll" - thinking, imaginülg, and speaking " as ifwhiteness described the
wur ld ," rcsulting in " a tu nnel-vision which simply does not see nonwhite
I'\ pt~ricncc or exi stence as precious or signifi cant. unless in spasmodic, impot­
,'11 1 g uilt rcflexes. whieh have li ttlc or no long-term, continuing usefulness"
I1 'J7I), 3(6). W hite rniddle-class fcminists, the refore , may offer conscientious
"\ prcssions 01' concern over "racisl11-and-classism, " believing that they have
111l:rcby taken into consideration profound differen ces in wome n' s experi­
" urc; simultancously, they can fail to see those differences at aIl (Bhavaní
111 prcss).
Thcre is nothing that prevents any of these dynamies from coexisting and
wll rking togcther. For examplc, Patricia Hill Colli ns (1990) argues that the
';lIrrression of Blaek feminist thought stems both from wh ite fe millists' racisl
,\lid classist concerns and from Black women intellectuals ' consequent lack
,,1' participatíon in w hite feminist organizations. Similarly, C he rríe M oraga
I1 ')X 1) argues that the "denial of difference " in fe minist organizations derives
uol only from white middle-class wornen 's failure to " see" it but also from
women of color's and working-class women's reluctance lo challengc such
hlilldness. Alone and in com b ination with one another, these sources 01' bias
dll rnuch to explain why thcre has becn a general failure to articulate raee and
.-I ass within the parameters of feminist scholarship; however, they do nol
I'x plain thc attraction of mathematical metaphors to right the halance . To
IIlloerstand this developmcnt, we must look further at the logic 01' feminist
Ihought itself.
Matlwmatical metapllOl's and jél1l;l/i.~t Ihougllt
1 n llowíng the earlier suggestion of bell hooks (1981 ; see also Hull, Scott, and
SlIlilh 1982), Ehz abeth Spelman contcnds that. in practice, the term " women "
al.'llIally fllnctions as a powerf111 false generic in white feminists' thinking:
Thc "problcm of difference" for femínist theory has never becn a
general onc about how to wcigh the importance 01' what we have in
wmmon against the importance of our oifferences. To put it that
way hides two crucial facts: First, thc description 01' what \Ve have
in eOllllllon " as women " has almost always been a dcscription of
white middle-class women. Second , the " diffcrence" 01' thís group of
women that is, their being white and middle-class- has never had
lo be "brought into" feminist theory. To bring in " difference " is to
bring in women \Vho aren ' t \Vhitc and middle class.
(1988 , 4)
S lt~ wurns IhaL lhi nk in g a bo lll pi ivill!!lc m e rcl y as a characteristic of
11111 ¡vid u ~l ls ra lhc r Iha n a s ti ('hU I jl t'I ~'1 i~ l iI.: (J I' IIIndes 0 1' thollghl - lllay a IToro
tI',ill1 undl:l \ ' il lltli llgof "whal p rivllL'J'l' h·t,'l h h lllllll Lwha t susl ain s il" ( 198H, 4) .
h
 DO! N(¡ D ll· !,'E 1UNC E
ID li N TlI Y ANI)III¡; SI'. ! l'

1r the clTccts of "multiple oppression" arc not merely additive nor si mply
W hat are the implica tions of a ferninist mode 01' thought that is so severely
1lIlIltiplicative, ",hat are they? Some scholars have described them as the
limited? Thc most important one, says Spelman , is the presumption that we
I'loducts 01' " simultaneous and intersecting systems of relationship and
can effcctively and usefully isolate gender from race and c1ass. To illustrate
Ilh::l lling" (Andersen and Collins 1992, xiii ; see also Almquist 1989; CoJlins
this point, she draws on many white fe mi ni sts who dcve10p their anal yses of
11I'1\); Glenn 1985). This description is useful insofar as it oflers an accur­
sexism by comparing a nd contrasting it with "other" fo rms of oppressi on ,
lit' characterization of persons who are simultaneo usly oppressed on the
Herein she finds thc basis fer additive models 01' gend er, race, and cJass, and
h,l.,is 01' gcnder, race, amI c1ass , in other words , those " at the intersection" of
" lhe ampersand problem":
,111 Ihree systems of Jomination ; however, if we eonceive 01' the basis of
" I'pn:ssion as more than membership in a category, then the theo retiea l
de Beauvoir tends to tal k a bout comparisons between sex and race,
1I11 plications of this formulation are troubling. Po r insta nce, what eon­
or between sex and class, or between sexoand culture . . . comparisons
, lll siolls shaJl we draw from potcntial comparisons between persons who
beiween scxism and raci sm , between sexism and cJassism, between
" \p~'rience oppression on the basis of thcir raee and c1ass (e.g., \Vorking-c1ass
sexism and anti-Sem itism. In the wo rk of Chodorow alld others
IIIl'l l (Ir color) and those who are oppressed on the basis 01' their gender and
influeneed by hcr, we observe a readiness to look for Iinks between
, LI<\s (e.g., \Vhite working-class womcn)? Would the "intersection o f t\Vo
sexism and other forms of oppression as distinct from sexismo
~~tel11s of meaning in each case be sufficient to predict common bonds
(1988,115)
,IIIHlIlg them'?" Clearly not, says June Jordan: " W hen these factors of raee,
• LISS and gender absolutely collapse is whenever yo u try to use them as
Spehnan notes that in both cases, attempts to add "other" elcments 01'
,IIlll1matic conccpts of connection ." She goes on to say that, while these
identity to gender, or "other" forms of oppression to sexism, disguise the
1'1 "Kepts may work very well as indexes of "commonly felt conflict," their
race (white) and cJass (midd1e) identities ofthose seen as "women " in the first
p' ~dictive value \Vhen they are used as "e1ements 01' connection " is "about as
place. Rich's " wh.ite solipsism" comes into play again, and it is impossible
' l'lwblc as precipitation probability for the day after the night before the day"
to envision how women who are not white and middle class fit into the
picture. I I IIX), 46).
What conc1usions shall \Ve draw from comparisons between persons who
Although Spelman (1988) herself does not address mathematical meta­
1,,' "aid 10 sufTer oppression "at the intersection" of aH three systems and
phors based on multiplication, ",e believe that her argument is relevant to
¡J " ISC \Vho suffer in the nexus of only t",o? Presumably, we ",iH conclude that
understanding ho w thcy develop. For example, take Cynthia Fuchs Epstein's
11 11' latter are "Icss oppressed " than the former (assuming that each categor­
(1973) notion 01' the " positive effect of the multiple negative" on the success
11 ,11 identity set amasses a specific quantity of oppression). Moraga warllS ,
of Black professional women. Aceording to Epstein , when the "negative
lIowcvcr, that "the danger lies in ranking the oppressions. The danger lies in
status" of being él woman is combined with the " negative status" of being
,11 111/.1: lo acknOll'ledge lhe .\pecificiIY uf' lhe oppressiol1" (1981,29).
Black, the result is the "positive status" of Black professional women in the
Spdman (1988 , 123-25) attempts to resolve this difficulty by characteriz­
job market. Baca Zinn and her colleagues contend that the very idca of this
II\ j' "I:xisl11, racism , and dassism as " interlocking" with one another. Along
" multiple negative" having a positive effect "co uld not have survived the
,lI lIilar lines, Margaret Andersen and Patricia Hill CoHins (1992, xii) describe
scrutiny ofprofessional Black women or Black women students" (1986, 293).
l'l mkr, race. and c1ass as " interlocking categories of experience." The image
They suggest that only someone who was substantially isolated from Black
ItI illll'r1ocking rings comes to mind , linked in such a way that the motion
\Vomen and their lite experiences could have developed such a theory (and ,
,,1 IllI y olle 01' thcm is constrained by the others. Certainly, this image is
presumably, only someone similarly situated could have promoted its pub­
_Ullll' dynamic than those conveyed by additive, multiplicative, or gcometric
lication in an established mainstream sociology journal).
'11' ,deis: \Ve can see where the rings are joined (ami where they are not), as \Vell
Spelman's (1988) analysis highlights thc following prob1cm: if we conceive
1, Inlw Ihe 1Il0ve1l1cnt of any one 01' them ",ould be restricted by the others,
of gender as coheren tly isolatable from race and cJass, then there i ~ every
reason to aSSllme that the effects ofthe three variables can be mulLiplied , \Vith
""1 II"II.! th at this image stiH dcpicts the rings as separate parts.
1I \Ve Iry In siluUle particular pcrso lls within this array, the problem with
1I bn' o ntl.!;oi dea r. W l' C<1n , 01" c~) "rse, ClIll\;cive 01' thc whole as " oppressed
results dependent on the vaJence (positivc or nega ti ve ) o f ¡hose multi plieJ
variables; yet, irwegra nt Ihal gcnderC¡mllO l bn;tlhcrcll lly isola téd rr~)m racc
Ill" ,pll:" llm.l 0 1" I he rill gs a~ "l!luse ~, prrc'i~ed hy gcnJer," "those opprcssed by
and class in the way \Ve conceptlluli7.c it, I hcll mli llipl icalivc 1I1t!aph()l"s m akt:
' 111 " " a 11l1 " l h\ ,~cl )rr n:s~cd hy da:,s ( "~'l' Fi~' 1I1 \.' 1), Th i~ a ll ows us to situatc
lill le SC IlSC .

111
 IIn N l rT V "NI) tlll' S I~1 I DOI N O UIFFFREN C E

3
"lhose oppressed
by cace"

"lbose oppressed
by class"
7 8

I /': /I/'(, 2 Experience.

Figure I Oppressed People. ~" I<' : I = WhilC uppcr- ano middl e-dass women; 2 = lJp per- and rniddlc-dass women color;
or
I "pper- and middk-dass rnen 01' (Jo lor. .:1 = Workin g-da ss womcn 01' color; 5 = W hite

N Ole: I = WhilC uppn- ano rniool c-c1ass wocm:n; 2 = LJpper- and middle-c\ass womcn 01'
lO,111 ~ ill¡!-c1ass women : 6 = Wor king-dass rncn 01' co lor; 7 = While wo rkill g-dass men; g = While
t:olor; :1 = 1Jpper- and rnidole-c1ass tnen 01' color; 4 = Workin g-dass worncn 01' color: 5 = While
"1'1ll.'1 and tniddle-dass 111 en , This figure is ncccssaril y oversimplificd , I:or cxamplc, uppcr- a nd
\\'orking-c1ass women ; (¡ = Workin g-dass tncn 01' color; 7 = Whi lC workin g-e lass mcn ; 8 = While
IlIlddI.;-dass pco pk are lumpcd logc lhcr, ncglcdin g Lhe possibililY 01' signifit:anl dim: rcn ccs
upper- ano midolc-dass men, This fi gu re is ncccssarily oversimpliticd, I:or cxampl e, uppcr- and
miodlc-dass pcoplc are lurnpcd loge lhcr, ncgl ecling lh e possi bilily 01' significanl difTcrenecs
1" I\WCIl lhern.
bel\Vccn lhetn.

1'1.1 address these questions, we first present sorne earlier atternpts to

women and men 01' all races and c1asses within the areas covered by the
circ1es, save for whitc middle- and upper-class men , who fall outside them .
However. what if we conceive of the wholc as "cx perience"3 and 01' the rings
as gender. race, and c1ass (see Figure 2)?
Here, we face an illuminating possibility and leave arithmetic behind :
no person can expcrience gender without simultaneously experiencing race
and class. As Andersen and Collins put it, "While race, class and gender can
be seen as different axes of social structlll'e, individual persons experiencc
them simultaneousJy" (1992, XXi).4 Jt is this simultaneity that has cluded our
theoretical treatmcnts and is so difficult to build into our empirical descri p­
tions (1'01' an admirable efrort, see Segura 199 2). C a pturing it co m pels us
to foclls on the actual mechun isms t hat prou w.:e s(lcial inequ ality. Il ow do
rO m lS 01' inequali ly, which we now see are mMC Ihall Ihlo! r e ríod k coll isíon
of cCl tego rics. opcratc logCl hd:' IJ ow do \Ve SC\! IIHlI a ll social cxchanges,
n;gan.l lcs!:i Il f l hl! pa rl ic ipílllts or Ihe I)lI lcwn c . III~' lill lll l lIil lll'OIlS ly "1,\elH.lcrcd ,"
"r a~cd . " a lld "dll'l:;cd''')
lll llccptualíze gender. Appreciation for the limitations of these efforts, \Ve
I ll,.'\il'VC, affords us a way to the second task: reconceptua lizing the dynamics
.,1 )'.ender, race, and c1ass as they figure simultaneously in human institutíons
.1111 1 ílltcractíon .
Traditional conceptualizations of gender
1(1 hegin, \Ve turn to Arlie Russell HochschiJd 's " A Review of Sex Roles
\(¡'warch ," publishcd in 1973. At that time, there were at least four distinct
\\ ,1VI> \JI' cOllccptualizing gender within the burgeoning literature on the topic:
11) ;IS Sl!X dillerellces. (2) as sex roles , (3) in relation to the mínority status 01'
\\ "IlI~IJ. and (4) in rclation to Ihe caste/class status of women. H ochschild
.,/l"C I VCS Ihat cach (JI' these conccptuali1.ations Icd to él differen t perspcctive
11 11 I he hdla víors ul' womc n and mc":
W h; 11 is In lype I iI r\!M1ill lliG " nil ',\11'1 1 iI' , pa ssi vil y i~ 10 typc 2 a role
Gil' lIu'lI l . I tl IVJlc ~ is a I.. h.l .... 1~· lI s li c and lo Iy pl.! /1 is ;1
IlIlI l u ll ly

IN
1I
 DOI N li DII· I·I; R I. N( ' ('
ID I,NI'I I'\' ANI> 1111 S II . I:

\'l)J\s!ructions 01' racc. Classifying African-Amcrica ns into specious

response to powerlessncss. Socia l changc might also lo ok somcwhat

1,Icial catcgories is considerably more difficult than noting the e/ea,.

differcnt to each pcrspectivc; d ifl erences disappear, dcviance bccomes

normal. the minority grollp assimilates, or power is cq lla lized.
"illlllf..!ical dif(erences distinguishing females from males ... \Vomcn

dI) share common expcrienccs, but the experiences are not generally

(1973,1013)
{he S<lIllC type as those affccting racial and ethnic groups.

(1990, 27 , emphasis added)

Nona Glazer observes a fllrther important difference between the types H ochs­
child identificd , namely , where they located the primary sO llrce o f inequality
I11 mursc, Collins is corred in her c1aim that women differ considerably
betwecn women and men :
!tol ll I1nc another with respect to the distinctive histories, geographic origins,
11 11 \ rult urcs they share \Vith men ol' their same race and c1ass. Tbe problem,
The sex dif(erence and [sex ] roles approaches share an emphasis on
""\H'vcr. is that what unites them as women are the " clcar biological criteria
und erstand ing factors tha r characterize individ uals. These factors
rlhl lll j!.uishing females fr om males. " Bere, Collins reverts to treating gender
may be in he rent to each sex or acquired b y individuals in the cOllrse
11. ,1 lllattcr 01' sex dilTerenees (i.e. , as ultimately traceable to factors ínherent
01' socialization. The mi/lority group a nd casle/class approaches share
1" (';u;h sex). in spite 01' her contention that it is socially constructed. Gender
an emphasis on fadors that are external to individua ls, a conce rn
1", PI IlCS conllated with sex, as race might speciously be made equivalent
with the structure 01' social institutions, and with the impact 01' h is­
torical events. 111 l o lnr.

( 1lIIsider a furthcr example. Spelman launches her analysis with a dis­

(1977,103)
o 11', ',1,,11 (Ir the theoretical nccessity of distinguishing sex from gender. She

1. ,11 ',1.':; de Beauvoir (1953) for her early recognition of the difference between

In retrospect, it is profoundly disturbing to contemp la te what the minority 11

group approaeh a nd the c1ass/caste a pp roach implieo about feminist think­ 1111 (\VO and goes on to argue,

ing at the time. For example, Juliet Mitchel!lallnched " \Vomen : The Longest
It is one thing to be biologically female. and quite anotber to be
Revolution " with the daim that "[t]he situation of \Vomen is diffcrent from
', hapcd by one's culture into a " wom an"--a female with feminine
that 01' any other social group . . . within the world of men , their position
tirralities, someone who does the kinds ofthings " women" not " men "
is comparable to that of an oppressed minority " (1966, 11) . Obviously, if
d" , someone \Vho has the kinds 01' thoughts and feelings that make
"women" could be compared to "a n oppressed minority ," they had to consist
duing these things seem an easy expression 01' one's fcminine natme.
01' someone other than "o ppressed minorities" themselves (cf. Hacker 1951). (1988,124)
Pcrhaps beca use ol'such theoretical problems, feminist scholars have largely
abandoned the erfort to describe women as a castc, as a c1ass, or as a minority
1111\11 , t heno does Spelman conceive of the social construction 01' \\loman? She
group as a project in its own right (see, for cxamplc, Aptheker 1989; H ull , Scott,
111" o IIl1 y invokes "sexual roles" to explain this process (1988 , 121 - 23) but also
ano Smith 1982). What we have been left with , ho\Vever, are two prcvailing
I"Ib nf "racial roles" (1988, 106) that affect the coursc that the process will
conceptualizations: (1) t he sex differcnces approach and (2) the sex roles
I,' ~ I I )espite Spclman's clegant demonstration of how "woman " t.:onstitutes
approach. And note, while the minority group and caste/c1ass approaches
were concerned with faclo rs external to the individual (e.g .. the struct.ure of
I '''l'
1 gencric in fcminist thought, her analysis takcs us back to "sex roles"
social institutions and the impact of historical events), the approaches that "11" 1I¡'ain.
( 1111 Jloinl here is not to take issue with Collins (1990) or Spelman (1988) in
remain emphasize factors that characterize the individual (Glazer 1977) .
1'01 11" IIla r: il would be él misreading 01' our purpose to do so . \Ve cite these
Arguably, sorne might call this picture oversimplified. Given the exciting
ne\V scholarship that focuses on gender as something that is socially con­
" tI ~" lo hi ghlight a 1110re fundamental difficulty facing feminist theory in
I m l,ll : IWW C\lIlccptualizations ofthe bases of gender incquality still rest on
structed, and something that converges \Vith other inequalities to produce
" Id Ullln :plllali/,at ions 01' gcnder (\Vcst and Fenstennaker 1993 , 151). For
difference among \\lom en , have we not moved wel! beyond " sex differences"
l ' IIll pk . Ihose who rely 011 él scx d ilTerenccs approach conceive of gender
and "sex roles "'? A close exam ina rí on o f th is li terature s uggcsts that \vc h ave
l . 11Ibl'1 ¡III' 111 lh\! illlli viuua l. in ollle!' words, as Ihe masculinity or femininity
not. For exu mple, Cúll íns co nlcnds tha!
111 ,1 jll' l Sll lI . F lscw hc n; ( FctI ~tc"Hakl.!r \Ves t. and Z immerman, 1991 ; W est
I l ld I \' II!;l\:rllla J.. e l 11)1)": Wcsl il lld ¡II\ lI m'r ll wlI 19X 7), we 'lote th a! this
rv. ¡hi k rat.:c ilnd gClIllcr arc b~l!h s~)d:l l l v ~' , lI l sI I IIC h:J cal cgories,
lI'"
I111 ~ Jlll lid lla li(\ " ohsl'I lrcs 1I 11\ h.'hlilllllll ll' ,,1 h \IW gcndc r can structure
l.'on strul.'{i u lIs ,,1' pClldcl ,., '\'1 1111 ,./,.(1/',,/ ',/"/d}: /!'''' ,'f'i/t'rio IIlall dll

,{
" 1)
 IIH i N/ / / ' ANJ) T il lé SI : LI.
distinctive do mains 01' social eXpC I; [!IlCC (see also Stacey and Thorne 1985).
" Sex ditfcrcnccs" a re treated as the explanation instead of the analytic point
of dcparturc.
Although many scholars who take this approach draw on socialization to
account tor th e internalization offemi ninity and masculinity, they im ply that
by about fivc years of agc these differences have become stable c haracteristics
of individuals- much like sex (West a nd Z immerman 1987, 126). The careful
distinction between sex a nd gender, therefore, is obliterated, as gender is
reduced effectively lO scx (Gerson 1985). 5 W hcn the social mcanings of sex
are rerooted in biology, it becomes virtuall y impossible to expl ain variation
in gender relations in the context of race and dass. We must assume, for
example, that the cffec ts of inherent sex differenccs are either added to or
subtracted from those of race a nd dass. We are led to assume, moreover. tha t
sex differences a re more fundamental than any other d ifferences that migbt
interes t us (see Spelman 1988, 116 - 19, for a critical examination of this
assumption) - unless we also assume that race differences and dass differ­
ences are biologically based (for refutations of this assumption , see Gossctt
1965; Montagu 1975; O mi a nd Winant 1986; and Stephans 1982).
Those who take a sex roles approach are confounded by simil a r difficulties,
although these may be less apparent at the outset. What is deceptive is role
theol-y"s emphasis on the specific social locations that result in particular
expectations and actions (Komarovsky 1946, 1992; Linton 1936; Parsons
1951; Parsons and Bales 1955). Jn this view, the actual enactment of an
individual's "sex role·' (or, more recently, "gender role" ) is contingent on the
individua!'s social structural position and the expectations associated \Vith
that position. The focus is on gender as a role or status, as it is learned and
enacted. /n earl ie r work (Fenstermaker, West , and Zimmerman 1991; West
and Fenstermakcr 1993; West and Zimmerman 1987), \Ve have noted several
problcms with this approach, including its inability to specify actions appro­
priate to partit:ular "sex roles" in advance of thcir occurrcncc, and the fad
that sex roles are not situated in any partit:ular setting or organization aJ
context (Lopata and Thorne 1978; Thorne 1980). T he fact that " sex roles"
olten serve as "master statuses" (Hughes 1945) makcs it hard to account for
how variations in situations produce variati ons in their enactment. Gi ven
that gender is potentially omnirele va nl lO how we organize sociallife, almost
any action could count as an instance of sex role enactment.
Thc most serious problem with this approach, howeve r, is ils inability
to address issues ofpowcr and inequality (Connell 1985; Lopata and Thorne
1987; Thornc 1980). Conceiving of gendcr as com posed 01" the "male role"
and the "female role" implies a scparatc- blll-eq ual relationship bc tween the
two, o ne c ha racterized by complemen ta ry rcla Liolls ra lll e!" than conflicto
Eltiew hcre (Fcl1slcrrna ke r. WCSI, a nd Z in llllcrmall 1991; Wesl ami l;clI slcr­
rnake r 1993; Wl:S I a no / illl lTlCrm a ll 19X7 ), we i ll tl~II, ll é I l lis pro hh.:m wil h
U¡¡ l ric T hornc und 11('1 l·.. lIc:tl'lIc': l) ]).\C I valill ll 11", 1 :;111 i:iI s('ic ll lis ls ha \'\.'
D O I NG D/F F I: REN<."t·:
1\111 lIlade lIluch use of role theory in their analyses 01" race and class rclations.
( llllcepts sllch as "race roles " and "class roles·' have seemed patently inad­
"~III:llc to account for the dynamics of power and incq uality operating in
1I",sc contexts.
As many scholars have obscrved, empirical studies of the " female role "
,\I1d "male role" have generally treated the experiences of white middle-class
pel sons as prototypes, dismissing departures from the prototypical as in­
lil llces of deviance. This is in large part what bas contributed to the charges
111 white middle-class bias \Ve discussed earlier. Jt is also what has rendered
111\· scx role approach nearly useless in accounting for the diversity of gender
Id. llions across di fferent g roups.
Sccking a solution to these difficultics, .loan Acker has ad vanced the
\ Il' W that gender consists 01' something else altogether, namely, " patterned,
II¡·ially produced distinctions between female and male, feminine and mas-
o.IIlille . . . [that occur] in the course of participation in work organizations as
"..di as in many other locations and relations" (1992b, 250). The object here is
111 dncument the "gendered processes" that sustain "the pervasive ordering of
" " ll1an activities, practices and social strut:turcs in terms of differentiations
1... lwccn women and men" (1992a, 567).
Wc agree fully with the object of this view and note its uscfulness in cap­
1111 illg the persistence and ubiq uity of gender inequality. 1ts emphasis on
II ll' allizational practices resto res the concern with " the structure of social
III ~i litutions and with the impact of historical evcnts" that characterized ear­
111"1 c1ass/caste approaches, and facilitates the simultaneous documentation o r
l'l' lIdcr, race, and dass as basic principies of social organization. We suggest.
hll wcver, lhat the popular distinction between " macro" and "micro" levels
,,/ analysis reflected in this view makes it possiblc to empirically describe and
\ f11ain inequality without fuHy apprehcnding the common elcments 01' its
.J.ll ly unfolding. For examplc, " processes of interaction" arc conceptualized
."m rl rmm the " production of gender divisions," that is, " the overt decisions
IIld procedures that t:ontrol , segregate, exclude, and construct hierarchies
1',lscd on gcnder, and often race" (Acker 1992a, 568). The production of
IIl1a gcs, symbols and ideologies that justify , explain , and give legitimacy to
I Il ~oI lll1tions " constitulcs yet another "process," as do "lhe [mental] internal
jll,lCt'SScs in which individuals engage as they construct personas that are
II'PlOpriatl'ly gendcred for the institutional setting" (Acker 1992a, 568).
'111" analytic "missing link, " as \Ve see it, is the mechanisl1l that ties these
.1 0'llI illgly Jiwrsc proccsses togcthcr, one that ¡;Quid " take into account the
\ 1111';1 raini,,!!. irn pact 01' cnlrenched ideas amI practices 011 human agency , but
ILIl II I¡J 1a\so acklwwlcdge Iha t (he syslCl11 is l"OlIlinually construed in everyday
hit .lIld Ih a \. II mkr ccrl a in cll ndil iotls, indi vid l.lals resisl pre~s urcs to conrorm
111 Ih e l\Cl'd~ ul" lh e syslcm" (h,sed 1\)1)1 \ H).
111 Slilll , il \Ve ctlllccivc 0 1" fCI II 1c1 11 >; .1 11 1,1111'1 \11" hi\ll ogical diITcre nl"c~ or
il ilh'll' lI lliIl ",Ics. Wl' :tIC l o ll~·\.·d 111 111111 1, 101 1I ti :. slalld lllg ap:II'1 I"mm a mi
1 1
 1 f) F N 1'/ l' Y i\ N 11 1 11 ! "i Jo: 1./'
I)OI N G DI l- "LRI:NCL

outside othcr socially rclevant, orgallizing expcrienccs. This prevents us frol11

un derstanding how gcnder, racc, and class operate simultaneously with one
¡lIlother. It prevents us from seeing how the particular salience 01' these
experiences migh t vary acros::; interactions. Most important, it gives us virtu­
ally no way of adequately addressing the mechanisms that produce power
and inequa lity in socia llife. Instead. we propose a conceptual mechan ism for
perceiving the rclations bet\veen ind ividual and in stitutional practice, and
among forms of domination.
An etbnomethodologicaJ perspective
Do n Z immerman concisely describes ethnomethodological inquiry as pro­
posing "that the properties of social lite which seem objectivc, factual, and
transsituational, are actually managed accompl isbments or achievements
oflocal processes" (1978, 11). In briet~ the "objective" and "factual" properties
01' social life attain sLlch status through the sitllated condllct 01' societal
members. The aim 01' ethnomethodology is to analyze situated condllct to
understand how "objective" properties of social life achieve their status as
sllch.
The goal 01' this article is not to analyze situated conduct per se but to
understand the workings ofinequality. We sho uJ d note that our interest here
is not to separate gender, race, and class as social categories but to build a
coherent argument for understanding how they work silllultaneollsly. How
might an ethnomethodological perspective help with this task? As Marilyn
Frye observes,
For efficient subordination, what's wanted is that th e structure not
appear to be a cultural artifact kept in place by human decision or
cllstom, but that it appear natural--that it appear to be quite a direct
consequence 01' facts about the beast which are beyond the scope 01'
human maniplllation.
(1983,34)
Gellde,.
Within Western societies, we take for granted in everyd a y Jife that there are
two and only two sexes (Garfinkel 1967, 122). We see this state of affairs as
"only natural" insofa r as we see persons as "cssentially, originally and in the
tlnal analysis either 'male' or 'female'" (Garfi nkc\ 1967, 122). When we
interact with others, we ta kc for gran tcd Lhal l:ach 01' liS has all "essential"
man ly o r womanly natllrc~ \lnc tha( Jcnvcs rrOl11llt l1' ~>:, :Ind un\.: lba ! can be
detecled rrom t he " natl lral ~ igl1 s " wc tri ve off ((¡O !flll ;111 1976, 75 ).
T hese bc.lit; r.., con~ 1 il Ul \! 1hl! n() l lIl a I¡ve cOllu'plioll,'i \11' l)f 11 1.:11 tlu re n.:g~1 rd ing
11 11; nru pcrl ics 01' n lll/lla 11 v sCXI.:d pCrSOIl"I ,",ud 1 I!did ... ' " PIIO II III\.' ~c~llI illgly
""Icctive," "factual," and "transsituational" character 01' gender in social
1l l.llrs, and in this sense, we experience them as exogenous (i.e., as outside
111 li S and the particular situation we fllld ourselves in). Simultaneously,
hu\\'t.:vcr, the meaning nI' these beliefs is dependen l on th c contcxt in which
I ItL') are invoked- rather than transsituational, as implied by the p opular
"II1i..c rt 01' "cognitive consensus" (Z immerman 1978, 8- 9). What is more,
h~l' ~l lISC these properties 01' normally sexed persons are regarded as "only
lIil lll ral," questioning them is tantamount to call1ing oursclvcs into question
,l', l'Olllpetent members 01' sodety.
( '()nsider how these beliefs operate in the process of sex assignment- the
IIl1lí. tI c1assification 01' perso ns as either females o r males (Wcst and
1I1l lllCrman 1987 , 131 - 32). We generally regard this process as a biological
,klc rmination requiring only a straightfo rward examination 01' the "facts
,.1 Ihc matter" (cL the description 01' sex as an "ascribed status" ,in many
III llOductory sociology texts). The criteria for sex assignment, however,
1.11 1 vary across cases (e.g., chromosome type before birth or genitalia after
hí l th). They sometimes Jo and sometimcs do not agrec with one another
(1' t!" hermaphrodites), and they show considerable variation across cultures
I I<.csslcr and McKenna 1978). O ur !llOra/ COI1J!icIiOI1 that there are two and only
11\10 scxes (Garfinkel 1967, 116 18) is what explains the comparative case 01'
, Ir'hi~villg initial sex assignment. This conviction accords femaiJes and males
1IIt' stalus 01' unequivocal and " natural" entities, whose social and psycho­
!,,,, ical tendencies can be predicted from their reproductive functions (\Vest
,lIul Zimmerman 1987, 127-28). From an ethnomethodological viewpoint,
',\:\ is socially and culturally constructed rather than a straightforward statc­
1111.: lit 01' the biological "facts."
Now, consider the process 01' scx categorization - the ongoing identifica­
111'11 orpersons as girls or boys and women or men in everyday life (West and
1I111llerman 1987, 132 34). Scx categorization involvcs no wcll-dcflned set 01'
, Iill:ria that must be satisfled to identify someone; rather, it involves treating
,ll'l'carances (e.g., deportment, dress, and bearing) as if they were indicative
.. 1 IIl1dcrlying státes ofaffairs (e.g., anatomical, hormonal, and chromosomal
,III'angcmcnts). The point worth stressing here is that, while sex category
',(' 1 VL:S as an "indicator" 01' sex, it does not depend on it. Societal members will
'.ce" a world populated by t\Vo and only two sexes, even in public situations
Ill a t prcclude inspection 01' the physiological "facts." From this perspective,
11 I ~ illlportant to distinguish sex category from sex assignment and to dis­
IllIl',lIish both fro m the "doing" of gender.
(¡cn d ~r, we argue, is a situated accomplishment of societal members,
Ihe lo\:ul nJallagclll~nt 01' co nd uct in rclation to normativc conceptions of
:I) \pl o r riatl' attitudes anJ. J c Livitil,::-; rm r a rt icular scx ca tegories (West and
11IllllCrm a n 1()37, L14 15). Frmn 111I!i pcrspcctivc, gender is not merely
111 1 II Il{¡vi dll;¡) ,I\trihllte hll l SOl ll l'll lI lI!, ' "itl í ~, Ul"CIlIll plis ll cJ il! inlnaclioll
\V II!I ol!w l's. 1I<.:I'C, as iJl o ur ead ll'l WI 11 ~ , \-VI' 1L' !V . ln Jnhn I kril aj1.C 's ( 191'< -.,

1I 11, NTIT V II.NI.) 'lilE SEU:
136- 37) fórmulati on or accountability: the possibility of deseribing actions,
cireumstanees, and even dcscriptions 01' themselves in both : >crious and eon­
sequential ways (e.g. , as "unwomanly" or " unmanl y") . Hcn tage points out
that members or soeiety routinely eharacterize activities in ways that take
notiee of those aeti víties (e.g., naming, describing, blaming, excusing, 01'
mercly acknowledging them) and p lace them in a social framework (i.e ..
situa ting them in the context of other activities that are similar or different) .
The faet that activities can be described in sueh ways is what Jeads to the
possibility ofcond ucting them with an eye to how they might be assesscd (e.g.,
as "womanly" or " manly" behaviors). Three important but subtle points
are worth emphasizing here. One is that the notion 01' aceountabiUty is relev­
,mt not only to activities that eonform to preva iling normative concep­
tions (i.e .. activities that are eondueted "unremarkabl y," and, th us , do not
warrant more than a passing glanee) but also to those aetivities that deviate .
The issue is not deviance or con formity ; rather, it is the possible evaluation
nI' aetion in relation to normative conceptions and the likely eonsequenee
nI' that evaluation for subsequent interaetion. The seeond point worth em­
phasizing is that thc proeess of rendering sorne action accountable is an
interactional aeeomplishment. As I-Ieritage explains, accountability permits
persons to eonduct their activities in relation to th eir circumstances- - in ways
that permit others to take those eireumstanees into account and see those
activities for wh at they are. "[T]he intersubjcetivity 01' aetions," therefore,
"ultimately rests on a symmetry between the producLioll of those actions on
the one hand and their recognitioll on the other" (1984, 179)- both in the
context of their circumstances Ü And the third point we must stress is that,
while individuals are the ones who do gcnder, the proeess 01' rendering somc­
thing aceountable is both interaetional and institutional in character: it is
a feature of social relationships, and its idiom derives from the institutional
arena in which those relationships come to lite. In the United States, for
example, when lhe behaviors of children 01' teenagers have become the focus of
public coneern , the Family and Motherhood (as well as individual mothers)
have been held aecountable to normative eonceptions of "essential " remin ­
inity (including qualities like nurturance and caring). Gender is obviously
mueh more than a role 01' an individual charaeteristic: it is a mechan ism
whereby situated social action contributes to the reproduction of social struc­
ture (West and Fenstermaker 1993, 158).
Womanly and manly naturcs thusly aehieve the status of objective prop­
erties of sociallife (West and Z immerman 1987). They are rcndered natural ,
normal characteristics of individua ls a nd o a Llhe samc time, rurnish the taeit
legitimation of the distincti ve ano uncq ll éll t'¡He:-; (JI' W(Jl1len anu mcn within
the soci al order. Ir sex catcgorics are J)o lentia ll y omni rcleva nt lo soci al lire,
then pcrsons cngagcu in virt ua ll )' a ny a¡;li vilY !Hay 111.' held acco ulIta ble rO l'
thcir pcrl'onn alKc 01' tlla t ac tivily as W\\lI Il'11 l lf liS IlIel1 u lld tlld r c~ltc!:lory
nWll1bers hi l~ can he tI~\,:d 11. val ida l\! 01 dis\'lcd,t fl1l'il 11 11I l'l iH:ti vitics . Th is
,1,
\l () I N (i 1) t 1-1' I lit! NI l'
"IiI"g,clllcnt pnwides rOl' counuess situaLiolls in which persons in a particu­
1. 11 sc x category can "sce" that lhey are out of place, and ir they were not
11'0:11.:, their eurrent problcms would not exist. It also allows for seeing various
,," ,1 1 IIrcs of the existing social order- fo r example, the di vision oflabor (Berk
1'';1'( '''), Lhe development of gender identities (Cahill 1986), and the subordina­
11,'11 nI' women by men (Fensterrnaker, West, and Z imrnerman 1991)- ·-as
:' II .I lural" responses. These things " a re the way they are" by virtue ofthe fact
I'hlt IIlen are rnen and women are women- a distinction seen as " natural," as
Itlll tcd in biology, and as producing fundamental psychological , behavioral,
II ul social conscquences.
I'hrough this formulation, we resituate gen der, an attribute without clear
'H' i:rl origin 01' referent, in social intcraction. This makes it possible to study
IlItw gcnder takes on social importo how it varies in its salienee and con­
," lI l1cnce , and how it operates to produce and maintain power and inequality
111 ","ciallife. Below, we extend this refonnulation to race, and then , to c1ass.
1111 IIlIgh this extension , we are not proposing an equivaleace of oppressions.
\( ,Iel! is not c1ass, and neither is gen der; nevertheless , while race , c1ass, and
VI'III \cr willlikely take on diffcrent import and will often eany vastly different
1IL'lal consequenecs in any given social situatlon, we suggest that how they
Ilpl' rate may be productively eompared. Here , our focus is on the social
IIll'chanics of gender, race, and c1ass, for that is the way we may perceive their
1I1lllltaneolls workings in human affairs.
Race
Wllhin the United States, virtually any social aetivity presents the possibility
.11 \'alegorizing the partieipants on the basis of race . Attempts to esta blish
I,I~'C as a scientifie concept ha ve met with little suceess (Gosset 1965; Montagu
\117"'; Omi and Winant 1986: Stephans '982). There are, for example, no
IlIl1hJgical criteria (e.g. , hormonal, chromoso mal , or anatomical) thal allow
plr ysicians to pronounce race assignment at birth, thereby sorting human
1r~' ln!\s into distinctive races 7 Since racial categories and their meanings
1 h. lIlgc over time and place, they are, moreover, arbitrary.~ In everyday life,
Ill'w rtheless, peoplc can and do sort out themselves and others on the basis of
Illl' lIlhcrship in racial categories.
Mich acl Omi and Howard Winanl arguc that the "seemingly obvious,
II,lIma!' and 'eommon sen se' qualities" of the existing racial order " them­
dvl,'s tcstify to the cffectiveness 01' the racial formation proeess in eonstrllct­
Ir,!, 1acialmcanings and identities" (1986, 62). Takc, for instance, the relatively
, .'H'lIt l:ll1ergcnec ofthe calegory " Asian American ," Any scientil1c theory of
, IU: wllllld be hurd prcssed 1.0 cxpluin this in the abscnce ofa well-del1ned set
C\lllit clia ¡'ur éls:;igning. ind ivid ua ls 111 tlll: catcgory. In re1atlon to ethnieity,
tlll tlrCllHore , it Illa kcs no sells!.: \lI Upl' h.'p.a lc in a sin gle ca tcgory the d is­
IIIIII IVI; h istories. g,c\)grap hil.: ()tiVill~ 111111 t,t rlllll'C:' uf Ca ll1hod ian, C hinesco
 IDI\NIIIY i\ NU 111 1,: SI :I ji
hlipi llo. JUpUIlCSl!, Kor\:!a n, Laolia n, T hai . anJ Vietnamese Americans. Des­
pite importa nl d islim;tions among these groups, Omi and Winant contend , " the
majority 01' Arnericans eannot tell the difference" between thei r members
(1986,24). "Asia n American, " thcrefore , afTords a means ofachieving racial
categorization in everyday lite.
01' course, competent members of u.s. society share preconeeived ideas
01' what membe rs of particular categories "Ioo k like " (O mi amI W inant 1986,
62) . Remarks such as "Odd, you don ' t look Asían " testify to lInderlying
notions ofwhtt1 " Asians " o ught to look like. The poin t we wísh to stress, how­
ever, is that these notions are not slIpported by any scientific criteri a fo r
reliably distinguishing members of different " racial " gToups. What is more.
evcn state-mandated criteria (e .g., the propo rti on 01' "mixed blood" necessary
to legally c1assify someone as I31ack)" are Jistinetl y Jifferent in other Western
cultures and have Iittle relevance lo the way racial ca tegorization occurs jn
everyday life. As in the case ofsex categoriza tion , appearances are treated as
if they were indicative of sorne underlying state.
Beyond preconceived notions of what members 01' particular groups look
like, Omi and Winant suggest that Ame ricans share preconceived notions
of what members of these groups are Iike. They note , for example, that \Ve
are likely to become disoriented "when people do not act ' Black,' 'Latino,'
or indeed ' white' " (1986, 62). From ollr ethnomethodological perspective,
what Omi and Winanl are describing is the accoun tability 01' persons to race
category. 11' we aecept their contention that there are prevailing normat­
ive conceptions of appropriate attitudes and activities for particular race
categories and if we grant Heritage's (1984, 179) c1aim that accountability
allows persons to conduct their activities in relation to their eircumstances
(in ways that allow others to take those circumstances into account and sec
Ihose activities for what they are), \Ve can also see race as a situatcd accom­
plishment of societal members. From this perspective, race is not simply
an individual characteristic or trait but something that is accomplished in
interaction \Vith other::;.
To the extent that race category is omn irelevant (or even \'erges on this), it
follows that persons involved in virtually any action may be held accollntable
for their performance of that action as members 01' their race category. As
in the case of sex category, race category can be used to justify or discredit
other actions; accordingly, virtually any action can be assesscd in re\ation to
its race categorieal nature. The accomplishment of race (Iike gender) does
not necessarily mea n " living up" to normative conceptions or a uitudes and
activities appropriate to a particular race category; rathcr, it means en gaging
in action at the risk ofrace assessm cnt. T hus. cven tJwugh indivi Ju als are the
ones wllo aeco mpliSh race, "the <.'l1tc rprisc is fUI1 J am\.! nlally intcract io nal and
insli tll liona l in chanlcler, rol' accountabi lily is ;.¡ Ii!a lllfé 01" social rcla lio n­
ships a nd its iJ il)tn is dra wlI rrom Ihe in..¡lilu li,\1ll1 l IllCl 1i1 in \vh ich those
rclaliollsh irs a re CrH ll'll,¡J" (Wes l ;\nd /tllll ll ~· IIJ ' i lll 1')1i7 11 / ).
d,:
DOI NG O "' FElU..i NCI :
The accomplishment of race renders the social arrangements based on raee
as normal and natural , that is, Iegitimate ways of organ izi ng sociallife. In the
lJnited States, it can seem "only natural " for counselors charged with guiding
high school students in their preparation for coIlege admission to advise B1ack
students against advanced courses in math , chemistry , or physics "because
B1acks do not d o weIl" in those areas (Essed 1991. 242). The students lTlay
weIl forgo such counies, briven th at th ey "do not need tbem" and "can gel into
coIlege without them ." However Philomen a Essed obse rves, this en sures that
students so advised wiIl en ter coIlege at a disad vantage in eomparison to
dassmates and creates the very situation that is be1ieved to exist, name1y , that
B1acks do not do well in those areas. Small wonder, then, that the proportion
of u.s. Black students receiving college degrees remains stuck at I ~ pereent,
Jespite two decades 01' affirmative action programs (Essed 1991 , 26). Those
Black students who are (for whatever reaso n) adequately prepared for college
are held to accounl for themse\ves as "deviant" representatives of their raee
eategory and , typicaIly , exceptionalized (Essed 1991 , 232). W ith that aecom­
plishment, institutional practice and social order are reafflrmed.
Although the distinction between " macro" and "micro" levels of a nalysi.s is
popular in the race relations li terature too (e.g., in distinguishing " institu­
tional " from "individual" racism or "macro-Ievel" analyses of raeialized
social structures from "micro-Ievel" analyses 01' identity formation) , we con­
tend that it is ultimately a false distinction . Not only do these " Ievels" operate
continually and reeiprocally in " our Jjved expe rience, in polities, in culture
land] in economic life" (Omi and Winant 1986, 67), but distinguishing between
them "places the individual outside the institlltional, thereby severing rules.
regulations and procedures from the people who make and enact them " (Essed
1991 , 36). \Ve contend that the accountability of persons to race categories is
the key to llnderstanding thc maintenance of the existing racial order.
Note that there is nothing in this formlllation to sllggest that race is
necessarily accomplished in isolation from gender. To the contrary, ir we
~:oncei\'e of both race and gender as sitllated accomplishmcnts. we can see
IIow individual persons may experiencc them simultaneollsly. For instance.
Spelman observes that,
[i]nsofar as shc is oppressed by racism in a sexist context and sexism
in a racist context. the Black woman's struggle cannot be compart­
mentalized into two struggIes- one as a Black and one as a \Voman.
Indccd , it is difficult to imagine why a Black woman would think 01'
her struggles this way except in the face 01' demands by white women
or hy BI,H:k men that shc do so.
(1988 , 124)
\'0 Ih\! Cl\l~IH Ihat all illd iviU llal BI:hk WOI llall is hd J ilCl.:ou nwble in ane
Ni II lal ion to her nllx \.':1 11:,,\ lry. a lid 111 ,llIil lll tl 1, \ h\!1' sl:X 1.:.. I Cg\11 y, we ca n ..,ce
,'.J
 1111 ! N " I \' i' N u I 11 1' 1; I I I
lhc ~c as " llpp ,J~ il iona l " dl::l Ha nds !tll .ll.;'iHIIII¡¡h, lIl \ 1\ 111 1\ \111:, il is a /JI1/1'I.
who is hcld accollllldh h.: in hol h ,.¡"", Ih llh
lI 'O/lWI/
Contrary to Omi lInd Wina nt's (1 9X6, 11-' ) 11.,,, 01 hy pl)lh~tit'al cases, 011 a ny
particular occasioll 01' intcraction , we a re ull llk.dy to hcC\ lI1 JC IIncomlorta hlc
whcl1 "pcop le" do not act " Black," " people " uo nol act "Latino," or whcn
"people" do no! act "white:' Ra tb er, we a re likc\y to bccomc JisconcerkJ
when particu lar B1ack \Vomen do not act li ke Bla ek \Vo/l/en, particular Latino
men do not act like Latino men, or partle uJa r w hite women do 110t aet likc
white women- in the context that we observe thcm , C onceiving of race a nd
gender as ongoing accom plishmen ts means we must locate their emergenee in
social situations, ralher than within the individual or some vaguely defincd
set of role expectations. 'o
Despite many important differences in the histo ries, traditions, and vary­
ing impacts of racial and sexual oppression across particular situations. the
mechanism underlying them is the same , To the extent that members of
society know their actions are acco untable, they wil! design their adi ons in
relation to how they might be seen and describcd by others, And to the extenl
that race category (like sex category) is omnirelevant to social life, it pro­
vides others with an ever-available resourcc for interpreting those adions. In
short, inasmuch as our society is divided by "essential" differences between
members of different race categories and categoriza tion by race is both relev­
ant and mandated, the accomplishment of race is unavoidable (cf. West antl
Zimmerman 1987, 13 7).
For example, many (if not most) Black men in the United States have, al
some point in their lives, becn stopped on the street or pulleJ over by pol ice
for no apparent reason. Many (if not most) know very well that the ultima te
grounds for their being detained is their race and sex category membersh ip.
Extreme deference may yield a release with the command to "move on:'
but at the same time, it legitima tes the categorical gro unds on whieh lhe
police (be they Black or white) detained them in the first place. Indignati on
or outrage (as might befit a white man in similar circumstances) is likely to
generate hostility , if not brutality, from the officers on the scene (who m ay
sharc sharply honed normative conceptions regarding " inherent" violenl
tendencies among Black men). Their very survival may be contingent on ho w
they conduct thcmselves in relation to normative conceptions of appropria tc
attitudes and activities for Black men in these circumstances, H ere, \Ve sec
both the limited rights of citizenship accorded to Black men in u.s. society
and the institutional context (in this case, the criminal justice system) in
which accountability is cal!ed into play.
In sum, the accomplishment of race consi sts 01' creating d ilTerences am ong
members of different race categories di ffercnces lhat are ncithcr na lural nor
biol ügical (cL Wcst and Zim merman 19X 7, 117 ) O lll'" ~'I ('a l ~'d lhcsc dirfcr­
cnccs are u\cd l O m aintailll hc "cs:;cn tial" d i.,litll.: liwllc...... p I fa~. i:11 id cllti Lics"
and the in slitll liollal arnlll1.tcmcn ls Iha l Ihcy ' ,lIp pl lll I 1""1 IIli~ p,'rspcclivc.
/111
I IO I Nli 111ft J IU Nf' I '
1.lllUI idclIl ilics a n: nol ¡lIvarian t itlcLlli ;ra tiolls of our human nalllres that arc
III1JlllJlllly di slrihutcu in society. Nor are norma live cunceptions 01' attitudes
.11 111 .l\.:tivitics rol' (lile 's race calegory lemplatcs ror "racial " behaviors. Rather,
\\ hlll is invarianl is thc notion that members of differen t "races" have essen-
1I.I II y dilkrcnl natures , which explain their very unequal positions in o ur
,,~·il,ty . "
C7ass
I his, loo , we propose , is the case with c1ass. H e re, we k now that even
vm pathetie readers are apt to balk: gender, yes , js " done ," and race, too , is
In:olllplished ," but dass? H o w can we r ed uce a system that " differentia\Jy
1IIICtures group access to material resources, inc\uding economic, politicaJ a nd
pdal resourccs" (Andersen and Collins 1992, 50) to " a situated accomplish­
tlu.: nl"'? Do \Ve mean to deny the material realities of poverty and privilege'!
Wl: do not. There is no denying the very different material realities im posed
Ilv differing relations under capital; however, we suggest that these realities
h.JVC little to do with c1ass categorization and ultimately, with tbe account­
.Ihilily of persons to c1ass categories- in everyday lite.
For example, consider Shellce Colen's description of the s.ignificanee of
III.1 ids' uniforms to white middle-dass women who cmploy West Indian
iUllnigrant women as child care \Vorkers and domestics in New York City.
111 lhe words of Judith Thomas, one of the West lndian women Colen
IIJIl.:rvicwcd ,
She [the emplo yer] wanted me to wear the uniformo She was really
prejudiccd. She just wanted that the maid must be identified ... She
used to go lo the beach cvery day with the children. So going to lhe
bcach in the sand and the sun and shc would have the kids eat ice
cream and all that sort ol' thing .. . I tell you one day when I look at
myself, I \Vas so dirty . . . just likc I came o ut from a garbage can .
(1986 , 57)
1\1 lhe end ofthat day, says Colen , Thoma s asked her employer's pennission
111 wear jean s to the beach the next time they went. and the employcr gave her
p\!nnission to do so. When she did wear jeans, and the employer's brother
c';III1C lo the beach for a visit, Thomas noted ,
1 really helicve they had a talk about it , because in the evening,
driving back I'rom the beach , she saíd " Wc1L Judith , I said you could
\Vea r some lhing cisc tu lhe beadl otller lhan lhe uniform [but} I think
ynu wi ll have l o wear lhe ullilün ll becu usc lhey' re very in formal o n
lhis bcach and Ihey du n'l know wllo is tll lcs ts from wh o isn't guests."
(19S6, 57)
til
 !DENT Il Y 1\ NI
Ofthe women C olen inlerviewed (111 1')lIS} HI " "lIl \\, I ~ Il lol king II lO rt'lhall
$225 a week , and Thomas Was the oll l ~ IJm \V li l l"l' l'llll'lllycr was paying lúr
medical insurance. AlI (including TIt OlII. I:, ) Wl' r ~ slI rporling al lea.sl two
households: their own in New York, a lld Ihal ur Ihe ir kill hack in the Wcst
[ndies. By any objective social scientilic crill:ria, fhen. all would be regardeu
as members of the work ing-c1ass poor; yet. in the eyes ofThom as's employer
(and, apparentl y, the eyes of ot l!ers at the beach), T homas's low wages. lon.g
hou rs, and mi serablccollll ilio l1s ofemployment were insufficienl lo estab lish
her c1ass category. Wi lhnlll a IIniform. she co uld be mista ken 1'0 1" one 01' Ihe
guests and ohcnn :. n(11 he hdd acco untable as a maid.
T hcrc i¡; 1l1 0fe lo Ihis e,xlI fnp lc, 01' course, tha n m eets the eye. The em­
t""11l
rl< lyllr\ nlll\\ilhs lan di ng. il is unlikely that Thomas, tending to whitc
I lI id d l~ dl l:.:" d ll ldrl' lI wlll \ wcrll d ca rly not her own , would be mistaken ror
a'
1J1Il' .. 1 tllI ' !'.IWltls ,111' hcad l. T he blue jeans, however, might be seen as
1I1t1'L.I'III.' hl'I I.l dlll \' IUl.'llfllpl y wi ll! normativc expectalions ofattitudes and
1>(.' 11.1\1111'. ,IjIJl' 1l(l J 111 11' '" n IlI aid <l nd, worse yet, as belying the competence
111 111' 1 ~ 111 1'11 '>\.'1 (Wll ll!il' II qtlr pr ilYis confirmed by Thomas displaying hersel f
,1', il 111.1 11 1) 1\:, I'vd yll N¡,killl n ( ilclln notes in another con tex t, "the higher
~1:lJldt fl d nI liv ill /' n I Olll' Wl) lI la ll i¡; made possible by, and also helps to
J1I'rpl.'l if all:. Ih e nllll.!1 s l\lwer stan dard 01' living" (1992 , 34).
.l\dllll ll cd ly. lhe II nn nulivc conccptions that sustain the accountabili ty
nI pcrsCl lIs lo d ,,:-;s ca lcg\lry a re so rnewhat different from those that sus­
tai" acco llnta bilily lo sCX catcgory and race category. For example, despite
ca rlicr a llcmpls lo li nk pa uperi::;1lI with heredity ano thereby justify the
rorced sleriliZ:lli o n or poo r WOrncn in the United States (Rafter 1992), sci­
entists today do nol com:eive al' class in relation to the biological charac­
teristics 01' a person o There is, moreover, no scientifie basis for popul ar
notions 01' what persons in particular class calegories "look Iike" 01' "ael
like." But although the dominant ideology within the United Sta tes is no
longer based explicitly on Social Darwinism (see, for example, Gossett 1965,
144- 75) and although we believe, in theory, that anyone can make it, we
as a society still hold certain truths to be self-evident. As Donna Langston
observes:
11' hard work were the sole determi nan! of your ability to support
yourself and your 1~lmily , surely we'd have a different outcome for
many in our society. We also, however, believe in luck and on closer
examination, it certainly is quite él coincidence that the " unlucky"
eome from certain race, gender and class backgrounds. [n order
lO perpetuate racist , sex ilit ami classist outcomes, we also havc to
believe that the CUrren t ccon omic distributiOll is unchangea ble. has
always existed. anu pro babl y cx i:. L'i in this form th roughoul Ihe
known universe. i.c.. it\ " Ilat ura l. "
( 199 1, 146)
(1
IloI Nt, II I III;l!ltHN(' ,"
I .11 11",11111 pinpoillls Ihc undcrlying ass umpliolls that l>ustain our notions
11111111 pl'J'sons ill rclalion to po verty and priv ilege- assumptions that com­
I'dl' \Villr 0111' contradiclory declarations 01' a meritocratic society. wi th its
il',lIl rlv illvo kcu exemplar, Horatio .l\lger. For example, ir someo nc is poor,
'l' ¡ISSIIIIIll il is beca use o f something (hey did or d id not do: they lacked
11I "I,l llVl', tlrey were nol industrious. they had no ambition. and so forth. If
,H/lI~' IIf1t' is rich , or merely well-off. it must be by virtue of lheir olVn efforts,
" I1I'II IS, ami initiative. While these beliefs certainl y look more mutable than
11111 vicws ofwomen's and men 's "essential " natures or ou r deep-seated con­
\'íl Ilo ns regarding the characteristics 01' persons in particular mce categories,
111,'\ ~ Iill rest on the assumption that a person 's economic forfu nes derive
'¡¡ UI1 I)lIalities 01' lh e persono Initiative is thus treated as inherent among the
",,\t" ami laziness is seen as inhcrent among Ihe have-nots. I 2 Given that
1II III ,lllVC is a prerequisite for employment in jobs leading to up\Vard mobility
i" IIIISsociely, it is hardly sllrprising thal "the rich get richer and the poor get
l'''IIIC r.'' .l\s in the case of gender and raee , profollnd historical effeets of
1"' '''lIclrcd institutional practice result , but they unfold one accomplishment
" , 1 1illll!.
111 he sure, thcre are " objective" indicators of one's position within the
\ ,1t:r1l or distribution that differentially strllclure our access to resources . It
1, IlIiS¡;ible to sort members of society in relation to these indieators, and it
l . Ihe ¡ob of many public agencies (e.g., those administering aid to families
" ,It depcndent children, health bcnefits, food stamps, legal aid, and disability
11\ Ild ils) lo do stlch sortin g. In the process, Pllblie agencies allocatc further
Ilm'qllal opportunities with respect to health , welfare , and life chances: how­
\t· J . whatever the criteria employed by these agencies (and these clearly
~hfl ll l '.l' over time and place), they can be clearly distinguished from the
1\ 1III Inlability of persons to class categories in cveryday life.
\ '; Benjamin DeMott (1990) observes, Americans operate on the basis ora
11111·. 1 Ilnusual assumption , namely , that we live in a classless society. On the
1111 Irand. our everyday discourse is replete with eatcgorizations of persons
b II.ISS. DeMolt (1990 , 1- 27) offers numerous examples ofteJevision shows.
!II \\~ p; l per articles, cartoons, and movies that illustrate how cJass " will tell "
il l ' lil' nwst mundane 01' social doings. On the other hand , \Ve bclieve that \Ve
1" IlIl' llniled Slatcs are truly unique " in cscaping the hierarchies that bllrden
' 111 I\ :~ I or Ihe developed world " (DeMott 1990, 29). \Ve cannot see the sys­
11) 11 1'1' disl ribution that structures our uneq ual access to resources. Because
\'1 ('¡ 1I111111 sec lhis, the accomplishment of cJass in everyday life rests on the
11I1'''"J1lplioll lhal everyone is endowed with equal opportunily and , there­
I"h' Ih:ll rea l dirterenccs in the oulCOIllCS we observe must resull from
111\11 .,, 11111:11 dilTcn:nces in atlrib utes li kc iJl' cll igcncc and character.
I 111 l·x a lll pl c. considcr lhe lll<.aJ¡;I '¡., COVCJ'aI,lC nI' thc tri a l of Mary Beth
" lllklrcad Iht: wir\.! Ma sa nil a, i¡HI \VII I ~\., :lnd surroga tc mother 01' Ba by M .
, , 1kM 1111 (I I¡I)O () 6 1( 1) (willh ¡IIII II l l1 l' l! 1II Ihis Irial revolved around lhe
11' \
 II H ' N I I I ' ,\NIl II IHSIL I. I'
qucstion orthe kind of wo ma n w ho wo uld a g l'\!c lu h¡;a r amI se ll hel child lu
someone else, One answer to tllis qu,~sl i o n mig h t be "Ihe kind 01' wll man"
who learned early in life that poverty engentlc rs obligati o ns of reciprocal
sacrifice among people- even sa c ritice ror those w ho are not their kin (cL
Stack 1974), W hitchead was (me of eight childre n , raised b y a single mothe r
who worked on and off as a beautician . Living in poverty, members or he!'
family had often relied on "poor but genc rOLLS ne ighbo rs " for help and had
provided reciprocal assistance when they coukL W hen W illiam and Betsy Stelll
(a biochemist and a pediatric ian) carne to her ro r help, therefore, W hiteheél u
saw t hem a s " seemingly dcsperate in their childless ness, threateneu b y a ruin­
lHlS disease (Mrs. Stern ' s self-diagnosed multi ple sderosis), [and] as people
in tro uble , unable to cope wi tho ul her" ( D eM o tt 1990. 99). Although she
Wll Uld be pa id ro r carrying l he prcgnancy an d although she kn ew that they
we n: bcller o ff f'inancially tha n she was, W h itc head saw the S terns as "i n
ncC(,1 \)f hel p" ami , he nce, could not do othe rwise than to provide it. D eM o tt
\!xpl a iJls:
S he liad seen people turn to othcrs helplcssly in distress, bad herself
been turned lo previously: in her wo rld faiJ ure to respond was
unn él tural. Her dass experience, together with her own individual
nature. made it natural to perceive the helping side of surrogacy as
primary and the comJ1lercial sid e a s important yet secondary.
(1990, 98)
Another answer to the "wh a t kind of woman" question might be White­
head 's lack of education about the technical aspects of artificial insemination
(DcMott 1990, 100). A high school dropout, s he thought that this procedure
al10wed clinicians to implant both a man ' s spe rm an.d a woman ' s egg in
another woman's uterus , thereby ma k ing it possible ror inrertile couples to
have their own genetic children. It was not until just before the birth that
Whitehead learned she would be the one contributing the egg and, subse­
quently , would not be bearing their chi ld but her own. Under these circum­
stances, it would certainly secm " néltural" ror her to brcak her contract with
the Sterns at the point 01' learning that it required her to give them her baby.
The media coverage of Whitehead ' s trial focused neither on class-bascd
understandings of altruism nor on c1ass-associated knowledge of sexual rep­
roduction : rather, it focused on the question of W hitehead's character:
The answers from a team or expert psychologists were reported
in detail. Mni. W hi te hcad was dcscribcd as " impllls ivc, egocentric,
self-dramatic, manipul<t tive and ex ploita tive," Onc Illcl1lbcr oC the
leam a verred thal she !'u lTercd rrom él "schil.otYPItI per<;on :l li ly dis­
orJ c r. " rAn o lhcrl ~lJV C il a s hil'> o pi n in n tlJil l llH,' dCl'c ll dilllt's a ilmeot
Was a " Ill ix.cd rc rso nu li l y Jisordcr." ol ld Il lal "1111' WiI:. " illllllalure,
11·'
\!x hi h ililll1lslic. ;JnJ !lisl rionic." . . , 1\ 1jnJc r the c ircumslanccs, he did
1101 'icé Ihal " Iheré wcrc any 'parental rights"': Mrs. Wh itehcad was
"a sUlTogilte 1Ilerus" ... "ami not a surrogale mo lher. "
(DeM o tt 1990, 96)
I'hr(1l1gh thcse mean s, "the experts " reduced W hitehead from a \Voman to a
\\10mb, ami , therefore, someone with no legitimate c1aim to the child she had
hl'ipcd to conceive. Simultaneously, they affirmed the right of Betsy Stern to
hl' Ihe Illother- even of a c hild she did not bear. As W hitehead 's attorney put
il in his summation , "What we are witnessing, and what we can predict wil1
happen. is that o ne cl ass of Americans will exploit another c1ass. And il w iJ l
always be the wife of the sanitation worker who must bear rhe children for
Ihe pediatrician " (Whitehead and Schwa rtz-Nobel 1989 , 160, cited in D e Mott
Il)l)() , 97). The punch line, of course , is that our very praclices of invoking
'\:sscntial differences" between cJasses sllpport the rigid system of social
rclations lhat disparately distributes opportunities élnd tife chances. W ithout
Ihese practices, the " natural " relati o ns under capital might wel1 seem fa r
Illore malleable.
The accomplishmcnt of dass renders the unequal insti t utional arrange­
Illcnts based on dass category accountable as normal and natural , lhat is, as
lcgitimatc \Vays of organizing social life (cf. West and Zimmerman 1987).
DilTerences between members of particular dass categories that are created
by this process can then be depicted as fundamental and enduring disposi­
lions. 13 In this light, the institutional arrangemenls of our socie ty can be seen
as responsive to the differences- the social order being merely an accommoda­
lion to the natural order.
In any given situation (whether 01' not tbat situation can be c ha racterized
as faee-to-facc interaction or as the more " macro" workings or instituli o ns ),
Ihe simultaneous accomplishmenls of c1ass, gender, and race will differ in
nmtent and outcome , From situation to situation , the salience of the observ­
ables relevant to catcgorization (e.g., dress, interpersonal style, skin color)
JIlay seemlo eclipse the interactional impaet orthe símultancous accomplish­
IlIcnt of all three. We maintain, nevertheless, that, just as the mechanism for
accomplishment is shared, so, too, is their simultélneous accomplishmcnt
l·nsured.
Conclusion: the problem of differcnce
As \Ve have indicated , mathematical metaphors describing the relations
alllong gender. race, and c1ass have led to considerable confusion in feminist
sdJOlarship . As \Ve have a lso indicated , the conceptualizations of gendcr that
slIpport m a t he matica l me ta p h ors (e .g ., " sex d ifferences" a nd " sex roles " )
have I'orcoo sch o lars to think 01' genuer as so melhing that slands apart from
a nd oU lsiJ e 01' raCL~ a nd da$s in r eo rle':; li vcs .
(, ',
 11> I N I I I Y J\ N I) I 111·. SI · 1. 1·
In p utti ng forth this pcrspcctivc, \Ve ho pe to advancc a nc\V way 01' think­
i ng about gendcr , race, and class, namely, as ongoing, methodical, a no
situated accom pli shments. W e h ave tried to d emonstrate the usefulness 01'
thi s perspectivc for unoe rstandin g how people expe riem:e gender, race, ano
class simultaneously. We have also tried to ill ustrate the implications of this
pcrspective fo r reconceptualizing " the prob lem 01' di ffere nce" in fcmin isl
theory.
What are the implications of our ethnomethodological perspective for a n
understanding of rela tions among gender, race, émd class? F irst and perha ps
most important, conceiving of these as ongoing accomplishments means that
we can llot determine their releva m;e to soci al aclion apart rrom the contexl
in w hic h lhey a re accomplished (F enstermaker, W est, and Z immerman 199 1;
Wcst .,"tI Fens termaker 1993). Whil e sex category, race category and class
categoryare potentially omnirelevant to social lite , individual s inhabit m any
differcnt identities, and these may be stressed or muted , depending on th e
situalion. F or example, consider the following incident described in detail
by Patricia Wi lliams, a law professor who, by her own admission , " Ioves to
shop" and is known among her students for her "ncat clothes":1 4
Buzzers a re bi g in N e w York City. Favored particularly by smaller
stores and boutiques, merchants throughout the city have in sta lled
thcll1 as screening devices to reduce the incidcnce of robbery : if the
face at the door look s desirable, the buzzer is pressed and th e door is
unlocked. Jf the face is that of an undesirable, the door stays pressed
and the door is lock ed . I discovered [these buzzers] and their mean­
ing one Saturday in 1986 . l wa s s hopping in Soho and saw in a store
window a sweater thatl wanted to buy for my mother. l pressed m y
round brown faee to the window and my finger to the buzzer, seek­
ing admittance. A narrow-eyed white teenager, wearing running
shoes and feasting on bubble gum glared out, evaluating me for signs
that would pit me against the limits of his social understanding.
Alter about five minutes, ho mouthed "we' re dosed ," and blcw pink
rubber at me. It was two Saturdays before C hristmas, at one o'dock
in the afternoon; there were several white people in the store who
appeared to be shopping for things for Iheir mothers.
(1991 , 44)
In this inciden l . says Williams , the iss ue of undesirability revealed itself as a
racial determination. This is true in a comparative sen se; fo r example, it is
unlik ely that a white woman la w professor would ha ve bcen t realeu thi~ way
by this salespersoll and 1ikel y that a Latino gang m e m lx r wou ld havc. Th is is
also true in a legal sensc; ro r example. in cases in volvi fl" d isl.'r illlinati on , the
law rcqu ircs potc n li al plai ntiffs lo s pcdry whét h~ 1 0 1 IIIlI Ilh'Y \VClé d iscrim­
in tllcJ ag¡lÍlIsl (1 11 Ihe bi.lsi s o r scx (Ir race lH son1\' .. 1111' 1 I 11 1r1lnll. Wc sllggcst,
Mi
11 ti I N (1 t) I H ' HU' N ( ' ¡¡
IIlIwcw r. thal scx calcgory anu dass catcgory, althollgh 1lI 11 ted , <trena
IIIl"Jcvanl to Williallls's story. Indeed , we contend that one reason read~r;í\
"pt lo lilld this incident so disturbing is that it did not ha ppen to a L~I\1
1',lIlg mcmbcr but to a Black woman law professor. Our point is not tO il1.8~
111,.lt .anY~llc should be treated thls way but to show that one cannot is() ~~)
Wllhams s r<lcc eategory from her sex category 01' dass eategory and 1 ,1\Iy
IlI ldcrstand this situation. We \Vould argue, furth ermo re, tha t holV cJ os! :1\
\I.' IIJcr are accomplished in concert with race must be unders tood thr()\\ Ily
.r.. . \ f
1Ila t spcelllC mteractlOn. \ I~
A sccond implication 01' our perspecti ve is that the aecom pli shment of t. ~~
,I;r-;s, and gender does not require catego rical d iversity a mong the pürr\\
,l lItS. To paraphrase Erving G offman, social situations " do not so n\~
.11I, )w ror the expression 01' natural differenecs aS for th e production o fjt~\ Ih~
dilTtrcncc[s themsel ves)" (1977, 72). Sorne of the most exlreme disPlay\\~h
cssential " womanly and manly natures ma y oee ur in settings that are u~ \'~]
! ~'scrved for members of a single sex category, s uch as locker room s orbe\ \j f
·,: IIOI1S (Gerson .1~85). Sorne of themost drama~ic expressions of "defil)i~\ \lly
..tass c?~rac~enstlcs r~ay emerge 111 cJass-speclllc contexts (e.g. , deblJl~\lly
h"lIs). Sltuatlons that IIlvolve more than one sex category, race eatcgory , \\"
,Iass category may highlight categorical membership and makc the ae' '~ te
plishment of gender, raee, and class more salient, but they are 110t neCt~\l~d
11) produce these accomplishments in the Ilrs t place. This point is ~~ \l)-¡­
·.llcssing, since existing formulations 01' reJations among gender, ra,t \\y
, Iass might lead one to eoncJude that " differencc" must be present fCJ~ .\h
q 'orical membership and , thus , dominance to matter. \il)d
A third implication is that, depending on holV race, gendcr, and \ t­
.11\: aceomplished , what looks to be the same activity may have di!);\,
lIH'anings for th(~se engaged in it. Consider ~he long-s~anding debates a.~\\I~ss
1 ~' lIl1ll1sts (e.g. , Collllls 1990; D avls 197 1: DIII 1988: hrestone 1970: Fr \ nt
1%:1: hooks 1984; Hurta do 1989; Za vella 1987) over the significari~\\n
IIlothcring and child c<lre in IVomen ' s lives. For white middle-cJass 1\l1:i\\la~
these activities have often been seen as constitutive 01' oppression ir¡ \~ 01'
tlll'Y are taken as expressions oftheir "essential " womanly natures anl.j I\tn
111 di.seredit their participation in other activities (e.g., Friedan 1963) \ha~
11I:llly IVomen ol' color (and whitc working-dass women) , mothcril) \ \.,ed
l llild care have had (and continue to have) very different meanings. A~; ~':or
P ilV is (197 1. 7) points out that , in the context ofslavery, African Anh' ~ nd
W() IIICn'S elTorts to tend to the needs of African American ehildre~ I~el'
IIn;l:ssar~ly their own) r.e presented the only labor they performcd that \:a~
!Hlt bc directJ y a pprop na ted by whlte slave oIVners. Throughout U.S. ni' \ In
~~. ot
hdl hooks o hserves, '\ 'luid
\lJ ry
Bluc k wOlm:n ha ve iUclIlil i..:d WO I k i" tire co n te xt 01' t he rami ly . '
1r 1l11l:llli/ ill1! Iaho r. worlo. 111111 .JlIII III N lh~~ ir id c nt ily as WOIll CIl, ~\
,,
\\
\{
11"
 111I! NTI 'IY ANII 1' 111 11 1
huma n bdugt> sll \)wi llg loVl; alld ~'¡lIl'
11 11: \tél)' ~'.\.' S IIlI(,S o)'lIl1lllanity
whitc supremaci:st iJcology dai m¡;J hl at..:k J1l!Opk: wen: ineapable 01'
expressing.
(19S4, 13334)
Looking specifica lly a t American fami ly Ji fe in the nineteell tb centLlry.
Bonnie Thornton DiII (1988) slIggests that being a poor or working-<.:Iass
African American woman, a Chinese American woman, 01' a Mexican A mer­
ican woman meant something very difrerent from being a Euro- American
woman. Normat ive, c1ass-bound conceptions of "wom an's nature" at th at
time included tenderness, piely. and nurturanee--q ualities that legitimated
the confincment of middle-class Euro-American women to the dom estic
sphere and that promoted such conflnement as the goal of working-c1ass and
poor immigrant Euro-American families ' etTorts.
For racial-ethnie women, however, the notion of separate spheres
served to reinforce their subordinate status and became, in etTect,
another assault. As they increased their work outside the home,
they were forced into a productive sphere that was organized for
men and "desperate" women who were so unfortunate or immoral
that they could not confine their work to the domestic sphere. In the
productive sphere, however, they were denied the opportunity to
embrace the dominant ideologieal definition of " good" wife and
mother.
(D ill 1988, 429)
Fourth and tinally. our pcrspective affords an understanding of the
accomplishment of race. gender, or class as constituted in the context of the
differcntial "doings" 01' the others. Consider, ror example, the very dramatic
case of the u.s. Senate hearings on Clarence Thomas's nomination to the
Supremc Court. Wherever \Ve turned , whether to visual images on a tcIevision
screen or to the was a B1ack /110/1 and that he was a B!ack mano It also made
a difference, particularly to the African American community, that he was a
B1ack man who had been raised in poverty. Each categorical dimension
p1ayed off the others and off the comparable but quite different categoriza­
tions of Anita Hill (él "self-made" Black woman law professor, who had
grown up as one of 13 children). Most white women who watched the
hearings identified gcnder and men's dominance as the most salient aspects
of them, whether in making sensc of the Judiciary Committee's handling of
witnesses or understan din g the relationship bet ween I lill and T homas. By
contrast, most A frican A merican vicwers ¡¡aw raci:;m as Ihe most salient
aspect or thc hearings, íncluding whi te men's pruriclI l il1 tcn;sl in BIack sexu­
ality and lhe exposurc 01' trouhli ng J ivi/!ioll s bl'twCl'1I BI:wk women and men
(Morrison 19(2). The poill! is that 11 0w we I¡¡]wl 'illd l d ylli lmil:s t..Iocs not
lit)
1I () I N (i "11 ; 1· 1- lt 1 N ( ' 1
II l'v\:s ~: lril y caplurc IIH:II' complcx qua1ity. I'oreground amI background, con­
11'\1, salicllce, C1nú center shin ('rom in tcrad ion to interaction, but al1 operate
11 Jt ~' 1 dependen tly .
())' l'llllrSe, this is on1y the beginning. G ender, race, and c1ass are only three
11I\'ans (although certainly very powerful ones) of generating difference and
dlllllinance in sociallife. 15 MllCh more must be done to distinguish other forms
,,1 IIlcquality and their \Vorkings. Empirica1 evidence must be brough l lo bear
0111 the question oí' variatíon in the salience of categorical memberships, while
.ti ll allowing for tho simultaneous influence ofthese membcrships on interac­
ItI 1I1. We sllggest that the analysis of situated conduct affords the best prospect
Itll IInderstanding ho\V these "objecti ve" properties of sociallife achieve their
IIII)',oing status as sueh and, hence, ho w the most fundamental divisio ns o f
"111' society are legitimatcd and maintained.
Notes
11111/01'.1" nole: /VI' gralefú//y aclou}l\'/edge ¡he crilica! commenls amI suggesliO/l.l' o(
/,,1111 Browl7 Chile/s, Ae/ele Clark. El'elyn N(//al!1o G!el1l1, !Jcrmal1 Gray, Aída Hurtado.
I ,';('rie }el1l1eS.I'. Nalley .lurik, Palricia ¡\1errilVel/¡a. Virginia O!c.~cn, Pamela Ro!Jy,
I 'II //a Takagi. .lall1es R. Wesl. Don H. Zimrnennan , A1axine Baca Zinl1, Ihe graduale
\ lIIdcl1lS o/ UCSB's Sociology 2J2P ( ....imer 1993), anc!, especial/y, DelzisC' Segura.
rllllllks 10 Pauy ForgiefiJr /¡ibliogmphic CI.I'.I'islance.
In this article, \Ve use "race" rat her than " ethn icily" to capture the comlllonsensical
hcliefs 01' Illembers 01' our society. As \Ve \ViII show, these beliefs are predicated
on the assumption Ihat differcnl "races" can be reliably distinguished from one
another.
, Compare, for example, the very different implica t ions of "Double Jeopardy: To
Be Black and Female" (Beale 1970) and "Positive Erfects oflhe M ultiplc Negative:
Explaining thc Success 01' Black Professional Women" (Epstein 1973).
111 this context, we define "experience" as participation in social systems in which
gender, race, and class afreCI , determinc, or otherwise influence behavior.
1kre, it is important to distinguish an individual's expcrience 01' ¡he dynamics
or ge,nder, race, and class as they order the daily course of social interaction from
Ihat individual's sense 01' ,i dentity as a Illember of gendered, raced, and classed
r:ltcgories. For example, in any given interaction . a woman \Vho is Lat,i na and a
shopkeeper ma y experien ce Ihe simultancous effects of gendcr, nlce, alld e1ass, yet
idcntify her expericnce as only "about" !'ace, only " about" gender. or only "aboLlt"
dass.
~ rhc ambivalence Ihat dogs the logic of social construction,i st positions should no\\'
hc all too familiar to feminist sociologists. 11' we are true to our pronouncements
Ihat s(lcial inequalities and the categories they reference (e.g., gender, mee, and
dass) are not moted in biology, then we may at sorne point seem lo f1.j¡·t \Vith the
lIolilln that they are. therefore, rooted in nothing. For us, biology is not only no!
,kstillY but abo not the onl y reality. Gender, tace, and e1ass inequalities are firmly
r" oled in lhe evcr-prese nt realitics 01' i" divi d ual practice, cultural conventiolls,
;ami soc ial institutillns. Thal's I'calilv vllolIgh , when \Ve ponder t.he pernicious and
pc rv:\sivc d \:lral.:ll.' r 0 1' racism, ~CXI~ llI , a lld cl.'oll()lllic opprcssion.
r, T I1 i1 1 punw lls ma y he held :H '~" 'llllla"h: ¡Jll CS l w l nwan Ihat tlwy ncccssarily
will he hcld acco" II I:lhl<- iJl L'''~' l ~ 11I!t: I:I, 'IIIIII 1'lIrllcul:lr inler:lclional oulcol11es
,'.1

, II n ;~Nu ~nr n
¡ /ll' 111>1 Ih ~' 1'\11 111 hl"", ,:.llIl" .1 is Ilu.: possihilily ,,1' :.ccolllllahilily in ally
iIII l:r:'cl jI> 11 .
7 ro lTIaint ai ll vil a l siU l isli¡;s ( 111 ral,;l:. C alifornia , 1'01' illstam:c, n:lies on mot hcrs' ami
1¡llhc rs' s\!lf-idelllitil:ill inlls ~)n hjrth cc rLilieatcs.
8 O mi anu Wi nilnt (1 1)!l(" M - 75) p!'oviue flumerous empirical illus t.rations, includ­
ing the lirst appearan ce 01' " white" as a tenn of self-identifiCdl ion (circa 1680).
CaJifomia\ del:ision to categorize Chinese peoplc a s "I ndian " (in 1854). and th e
U .S. Cc nsus's creation of the category "llispanic" (in 1980).
9 C on-;idcr Susie Guillory Phipps's unsm;cessful suit against the Louisia na Bureall
af Vital Records (O mi and W inant 1986, 57). Phipps was c1assified as " Black " o n
her birth certificate. in accord w ith 11 1970 LOllisiana la w stipula ting that an yon
with al leas! one-thirty-second " N egro blood " was '·BJa ck. " 1ler atlorney contendeu
that e!esignating a race category on a person's birth certificate was unconstitulional
ane! that , in any case, the one-thirty-scconu critcrion was inaccurate. LJltimatcly,
lhe cOllrt lIphe ld Louisiana's state law qllantifying " racial ie!entity" and thereby
affirmed the legal principie of assigning persons to specific " racial" groups.
10 This would be true if only becallse outcomes bea rillg on po we r and inequality are
so different in e!ifferent situations. Ours is a forrn uliltion that is scnsitive to vari­
ability. that can accommodate, for example, intcraetions where c1ass privilege and
racism seem eq ually salient , as well as those in which racism inleractionally
"cclipses" accountabilily to sex category.
11 As Spelman observes, "T he exi~tcn ce of raeism d oes not require that there are
races; it requires the beliefthat there are races" (1988, 208, n. 24).
12 A devirs advocate might argue that gender, race, anJ class are funJamcntally
different beca use they show diffeTent degrees of "Illutability" or latituJe in the
violation of expectations in interaction. Although c1ass Illobility is possible. one
might argue, raee Illobility is not ; or, while sex change operations can be per­
formed , race change operations Cilnnot. In response, we woulu point out that the
very notion that one cannot change o nc's race - but can change one's sex and
manipulate displays of one's class- ·only throws us back to biology anu its reassur­
ing, but only apparent immutability.
13 Although we as a society believc ' that so me people lllUy "pull themselves up
by their bootstraps" ane! others muy " fall from grace." \Ve still cherish the notion
that c1ass will reveal itsclf in a person 's fundamental social and psychological
character. We commonly regaru the self-maJe man, the wclfare mothe!', and Ihe
middle-class housewifc as uistillct categories of persons. whose attitudes anJ
actlvitjcs can be preJicted on catcgorical grounJs.
14 We include these prefatory comments about shopping anJ c10thcs fo r those reaucrs
who, on eneollntering this e!escriptioll , asked , "W hat does she look Iike'!" and
"What was shc wearingT' Those who seek further informalion will fllld Williams
featurcd in a reccnt fashion layoul for M irahel/a magazine (As Smart as They
Look 1993).
15 We cannot stress this strongly enough . Gender, racc, and class are obviously very
salient social a ceomplishments in social lile, because so Illany features of our cul ­
tural institutiollS alld uaily uiscourse are organizeu to perpe t ua te the categorical
distinctions on which they are baseu. As Spelman observes, " the more a society
has invcsted in its Illembers' getting the eategories right, the more oceasions there
will be for reinforcing thelll , and the fewer occasions there will be for questioning
them" (1988. 152). O n any givcll occasion of interaction , however, \Ve may also be
hele! accountable to other categorical mClllb~rships (c .g., elhnicil Y, nati ona lity. sexual
oriental ion , pl uce 01' birthL :lOd. lhus, " dilú'rC111,;¡;" llIi1y Ihen be dilTcrentially
cOllstilu tcd .
70
1)( JI N ( ; 1111 {' J ItI J N I ~ t ·
R efcrcn~('s
_,\l'h:r , Joall. 1<)92<1. Gendered institulillllS: Frolll scx roles to gene!ered institutions.
Soci%gv 21: 565 - 69.
( 'o//I('/I/¡>(}/,{/f1'
1992b. G cnderin~ orgllnizat ional theory. In Gel/dering Organizaliona/ Tll eury ,
cdilcd by A lbert .l. Milis and Peta Tancred. London: Sage.
I\llIlquist, Elizabeth. 1989. The expe riences 01' minority women in the U nited States:
Inlcrsections of race. gender, a nd c1ass. In Womell: A/ell1inisl perspeclive, eJitee! by
.h) I·'rceman. Mountain View, C A: Mayfield.
Andcrson. Margaret L., and Pa tricia Hill Collins. 1992. Preface to Race. e/ass alld gel/del',
cditee! by Margarot L. Andersen ane! Patricia Hill CoHins. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
¡\ pI hcker, Bettina. 1989. Tapestries of lije: WlIIl1l'n's )I'ork, II'O/I1e/1 's COI1SciOUSlleS.I'. and
1/'" /I1e{/l/ing o/dai/y l'xperience. A mherst: Uni versity of Massachusetts Press.
1\, slllart as th ey look. Mirohe//a , June 1991, 100 - 111.
Ikalc , Fiances. 1970. Double jeopardy: To bc Black ane! female. In Tlle Black \I 'UII/ml:
/1// anlll%gy, edited by Toni Cade (Bambara). New York: Signet.
link. Sarah renster maker. 1985. Tlle gfndcr fáclory: Tlle apporliun/llenl (Jf lI'ort.: in
ilnleriwn !rouse{¡o/dv. New Yo rk: Plenum.
IIhavani , Kum-Kum . In press. Talking racism and the editing ofwomen's sludies. In
II/Irodl/cing )I'omen·.I' swdie.\', edited by Diane Richardson and Vicki Robinson. Ne\\i
York : Macmillan.
( 'ahill, Spencer E. 1986. Childhood socialization as recruitlllcnt process : Some lessons
from the stud y of gender development. 1n Soci%gica/ Sll./i/ies uf cllild del'e/O¡JlIlCn I ,
cdited by Patricia Adler ane! Peter Ad\er. Greenwich , CT: l A\.
('olcn, Shellee. 1986. "With respect ane! feclings" : Voices of West Indian child care
and domestic \Vorkers in New York City. In A// AlI1erican I\'OIl1l'n, edited by .lohnella
B. Cole. New York: Free Press.
( 'ollins, Patricia Hill . 1990. B/ackjéminis' (hol/ghl . Ncw York: R outledge.
( 'onnell, R. W. 1985. Theorizing gender . So!'iology 19: 260 ..72.
Davis, Angela. 1971. The B1ack woman' s role in the community of slaves . B/a('k
. .;dlO/ar 3: 3- 15.
. 1981. WOIl1CI1 . roce and e/as.\'. New York: Random House.
.k Beauvoir, Simone. 1953. The second sexo New York: Kllopf.
I kM ott. Bcnjamin. 1990. T!le il1lpt'ria/ midd/e: Why Amerimll.\· ('on ', l!link .I'[raiglrl
,,/mlll ('/as.I'. Ne\V Haven, CT: Yale University Pres.>.
llill. Bonnie Thornton. 1988. Ou!' mothers' grief: Racial ethnic women ane! the
maintcnance of families. jOl/rna/ oI Fami/y Hislory 13 : 415- 31.
I' pstein, Cynthia Fuchs. 1973. Positive eff~cts orthe double negative: Explaining the
SUl'CCSS of B1ack professional women. 1n C/Wl1ging l\'O/11en in (f cllanging .l'ociely,
\!ditcd by loan Huber. Chicago: Univcrsily of Chicago Press .
I'sscd. Philomcna. 1991 . UnderslOl1dil1g ('I'eryda)' raci.l'lI1: / 111 il1lerdiscip/inarl' IlIeory.
Newbury Park . CA: Sage.
h'nstermaker, Sarah. Candace \Vest. amI Don H. Zimmerman. 1991. Gender in­
l'quali ty : New conceptual terrain . In Gellder. jámily al/{/ ccol1omy: Tlle triple o ver­
/(1('. cdi lCU by Rae Lcsse r Blumbl'fg. Newbury Park. CA: Sage.
J !lestolle. Shu la mith . 1970. n/l' dia/('clic lI(sex. New Y ork: Morrow.
I riedan . Ilt:l ly. 1%3. ,[,ht' Ji '/IIilli//(' 1/I,·.\li«(II1'. New York: Del!.
/1
 TI
I-rYI:, Marilyn , Ir)H~ . nli' I,,,/il/, ·.\ ,,1 ,. ',.t//\ I ~\,\ (IJ 'J ,Ú /¡ill,II"I( "" '(//1 '. I'rllnlilIlShllll'"
NY: C rossing Prcs~
Ga rfinleL J larold. 1()ü7. S tlldi,'s il/ "11111111/11',11".1"1,,,. 1' 1'. IIt' lcwpod UifTs, N.I :
Prentice-I lall.
G erson , J udith. 1985. n,e I'uria!;ilil)' al/(I.mlielll'<' o(,!!,(,,,t!cr: !sSI/CS ld'm/lccpll/ali::alio/l Mor;lgu , Chcrríe. 1981. La güera. In This h/'idge c({IIed /11y hack: Radiwlll'rifing hy
(/mlllleasu/'emenl. Paper presented at the annualmeeting orlhe Amenean Sociologic<d
Association , Washington . DC, August.
Glazer, Nona. 1977. A soeiological perspective: Introduction . In WOl1'/a/1 ill a I/WI/­
mude )Vo/'Id, edited by Nona G lazer a nd II clen Yo ungelson W aehrer. Ch icago:
Ra nd McNally.
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano . 1985. Racial elhnic women 's labor: T he inlerseel io n of race ,
gender and cIass opprcssion. Review ol Radical Pu/itical EC{)llo/'nics 17: 86- 108.
- -o1992. F rom scrvitude lo service wor k: Hislorical continu ities in the racial division
of paid reproduclive labor. SIGN S. .Ioumal (¿( Womell i/1 Cullure (I/UI Sociely 18:
1- 43.
Goffman. Erving. 1976. Gender display. Stl.ldies in Ihe Anlhropology o/ Visual CO/l(­
mU/1imlio/1 3: 69- 77.
- -o 1977. T he arrangement between the scxes. 711eory amI Sodely 4: 301 - 31.
Gossett, T homas. 1965. R{(ce: TI/e history o(an idea in America. N cw York: Schocken
Books.
I lacker, Helen Mayer. 195 l. Women as a minority groúp. Social Forces 3D: 60- 69.
Heritage, John. 1984. G(//jinkel amI elhnomelllOdology. Cambridge, England: Polity.
Hochschild , A rhe Russell. 1973. A revicw 01' sex role research. AmericO/1 .Iour!1al (1
Sociology 78: 101 1·-29.
hooks, bcIl. 1981. Aill'l la 11'0/1'/(/11: Block WOl1'/ell orldfell1inism. Boston : South [nd .
Staeey. J udith, and Barrie Th ome. 1985. The missing feminis l revolution in sociology.
- -o1984. From margin LO een/er. Boston: South End.
Social Prublems 32: 301 -- 16.
H ughes, Everett C. 1945. Dilernmas and contradietions of status. Amaimll Jour/1ol o/
Slack , Carol B. 1974. AII au/' kin: Slralegies/or survivol in a Block col/UnUnily. New
Saciulagy 50: 353 - 59.
Hull. Gloria T. , Patricia Bell Scott, and Barbara Srnith , eds. 1982. AII Ihe lI'o/llen ore
II'IIile, ali Ihe Blacks are /I/en, hUI some O['IIS ore hra ve. Old Weslbury, NY: Feminisl
Press .
Hurtado, Aída . 1989. Re lating to privilege: Seduction and rejection in the subordin éí­
tion of white women and women of color. Sígns: JOllnwl uI Women in Cullure ((lid
Sociely 14: 833 - 55.
Jordan , June. 1985. Report from the Bahamas. In 0/1 coll: Poli/ical essays. Boston :
South End.
Joseph , Gloria, amI J.ill Lewis, eds. 1981. COll1l1/On di//erences. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Kessler, Suzanne J. , and Wendy McKcnna. 1978. Gender: An elhnomel!7odologicul
(/pproaeh. New York: Wiley.
Komarovsky. Mirra. 1946. Cultural eontradiclions and sex roles. American JOl/mal o(
S ociology 52: 184 89.
- -o 1992. The concept of social role revisited. Gel/del' & ,'>'ocie/y 6: 30 I - 12.
Langston , Donna . 1991. Tired of playing monopoly? In CllOnging ollr pOll'er: .4n
inlrodl/clio/1 lo Il'OlI1e/ú' sll/dies, 2d eJ., edited by Jo Whiteh o rse Cochran , Donnél
Langston , and Carolyn Woodwa rd. D ubuquc. lA : KendalI- ll unt.
Linton . Ralph. 1936. Tlle sludy ofman . NeVv Yo rk: A pplcto n-CcnlUry.
Lopata , Helen a Z.. and Barrie Thorne. 1987. 00 lhe terlll "se.' r" lel> .. Slgn.l' · ./011/'11(/1
o( WO/l/('// ill Culture amI Soóel y 3: 718 21.
7'
1" - '1 r.,.,-·- .-, • .- , 1' . " ,--. . .. . .
I ,.. Ilil' . A udrc. 1')1\,1. .)'/1'/ 1'1' olllsitla. '1 n llll;\IIShlll !'. NY: ('rosslIlg.
!\H hl ey . ed. 1(>75 . Ra/'(' & IQ. I.olldoll: O xford lJnivcrsily Press.
M,,"I;I)!.II.
MildwlI , .I\lliel. 1\)66. Women: T he longcsl revolution. Nelt' Left Revie\\' 40: 11 ·­
.17.
11 '0/1/('1/ 01' color, edited by Cherríe Mo raga and Gloria Anzalduá. New York:
K ilchen Table Press .
Moraga , Cherríe, Hnd Gloria Anzalduá. cds. 1981. nlis hritlge called 111)1 hade W/'ilings
hy mdica/lvolI/en otcolor. Wa tertown . MA: Persephone.
Morrison, Toni, ed. 1992. Race-ing jus/ice, engender-ing po\\'er: /::.":,say s un Aniw. Hill,
(,Iarel/ce Thomas, omllhe cuns/ruclion o(social realily. New York : Pantheoll.
()lIli. Michael, and Howard Winant. 1986. RacialIormolion in lh e UnÍl.ed SIGles(rom
lile 1960.1' lo lite 1980s. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
I':.rsons, T alcott. 195 l . Th e soci((I.ly slem . New York: Free Press .
('arsons, T alcott. and Robert F. Bales. 1955. Fumi!y, socializalion ((nd inlemclion
process. New York: Free Press.
¡{"fter, Nichole H. 1992. Claims-making and socio-cultural context in the nrst U.S.
eugenics camraign. Sucial Problems 39: 17- 34.
Rieh, Adrienne. 1979. Disloyal to civilization: Feminism , racism, gynephobia. In 0/1
!ies, secrels. amlsi/ence. New York: Norton.
Segura. Denise A. 1992. Chicanas in white collar jobs: " You llave lo prove yOll"~elf
more." Sociological Per.lJ1ectives 35: 163 -82.
Spclman , Elizabeth V. 1988. Illessel/Lial lI'O/l1(1n: Prohlems oI exclusion ill j'eminist
Ihoughl. Boston: Beacon Press.
York: Harrer & Ro\\'.
Stcphans, Naney. 1982. The idea o/ mce in science. Hamden, C'T: A rehon.
Thorne. Barrie . 1980. Gender ... Ho\\' is it best conceptualized? Unpublished manu­
script , Department 01' Sociology, M ichigan State University , East Lansing.
West , Candace, and Sarah Fenstcrmaker. 1993. Power. inequality and the accom­
plishment 01' gender: ATI ethnon"ethodological view. In Theory 01'1 genderlfeminisl11
on t/¡eory , edited by Paula England. Nc\\' York: Aldine.
West, Candace. and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gentler & Sociely
1: 125- 5 1.
Williams, Patricia. 1991. Tll e ((Ichell/Y of mee (/mlrighls. Cambridge, MA: HarvarJ
University Press .
y oung, Iris Marion. 1990. Impartiality and the civic public. In T/1/'OIt'ing like (/ girl and
olhe/' essays inf('minisl phi/o,\'of!hy. Bloomington: Indiana University Prcss.
Zavella , Patricia. 1987. WO/11 e/1 's \Vork und C'l/Ímnojúmi/ies: Cal1nery lI'orkers of lite
SonIa Clara Valle.v. Ithaca , NY: Cornell U niversity Press.
I ,illlmerman. Don H. 1978. Ethnomethodology . American Sociulogi.I·1 IJ: 6- 15.
I.inn, Max.ine Baca. 1990. Family. feminism and race in America. Gender & Socie/v
4: 68 82 .
/ iTlIl. M axine Raca , Lynn We ber Cannon, El izabeth Tligginbo th am , and Bonnie
Tho rnlon Dill. 1986. T he costs 01' exclusionary practices in women's studies. Signs:
./O/lfll((1 (ir
WOII/('II in Cullure (lnd ..'>"";('/.1' 11: 2l)()- 303 .

71
P RO LOGUE
Perforrning blackness
Kimberly W Benslon
So urcc: Peljurming B lockness: J:'l1aC!lI1enIS ofAfi-ical1-Americ(J11 Alodernism , London: Roullcd gc,
2000, pp . 1- 2 1.
Brothers and sisters, my text this morning is the Blackness of
B1ackness ... Black will make you ... or black \ViII unmake you.
Ralph Ellison, Inl'isihle Atan I
Brown is not brown except when used as an intimate description of
personal phenomenological fields . . .. that is, we need ahem, a meta­
la_nguage ... something not inc\uded here.
Amiri Baraka, The Slave 2
1
Tl le Postal O ffkial was taken aback: he was on a routine inspection
of a sorting office on Chicago's Southside, but what he saw was
definitely nor routine . Ofrto one side, without ostentation or fanrare,
a young \Vorker \Vas sorting his pieces as if he were Michacl Jordan
giving a c\inic: around the back - shump!, into the box; through the
legs - slVish! , into the bag; and so on. Tbe Official couldn't forbear:
"Young man," he intoned , " that's truly amazing! " "Aw, man," the
worker shot back , flipping anothcr piece over his head neatly into a
slot, "This ain't nuthin ... you just \Vait 'til I can read this jive!"
I first heard this Dick Gregory tale \Vhen growing up in Chicago in the I 960s.
Now, Gregory told the sto ry to our p redominantly black high school audi­
ence with an undertone of sardonic bittemess al its implil: it dicholomy of
blackness and Iiteracy. At the s(lmc lime (lnd no JO ll h t ( , lqWI)' had this too
in milld \.Ve recogni zed hu mor in the dclicil1l1s ¡roo}' \1 1,1 vil'''' IJillrn p h \l yc r
7c\
l' It 111 {I r ; llf
lit,' ¡lIlCllatill g lI.:cllllol\lgy 01' orlicialdol\\: 111\: Iricbter \w er the chump, the
11I psl e l ()Ver the Man . W ith pcrhaps too IiUle appreciation 01' Gregory's
Ulllt iOlwry tOlle (or 01' his a ppended maxim: "Get from the playground to the
I'lIlvillg-gro und " ) the tale made the sandlot rounds for many months, and
"VCII ir \Ve used to speak 01' Earl-the-Pearl and Chet Walker instead 01'
Midlacl Jordan, i( answered exultantly to some rebellious need we all felt a s
WI.: lTawled our \Vay through the labyrinthine nightmare of u rban educatiollal
Ih:cay. We imagined that its strategies of indirectioo and displaeement were
11~<; i g ned to create alternative expressive possibilities to those proferred by the
lI1il ~( e lfs) texts: its hy perbolic and parodic adherence to institutiona l ord er
,uggested how thc wil and irony of performance could supplant the c1assify­
III )!. lIorms 01' sanctioned \Vriting.
Little did 1 suspect that the story could be redeemed years later as an
.dkgory 01' my professionallife - Ilot , thank goodness . <1S a postal c1erk , but,
11\ one 01' its more perverse variations, a literary critic - a critic specifically of
'\ frica n-American expressive tradition . Fo r at the time 1 was first eneounter­
In g Gregory 's little rabie as a schoolboy io Chicago , the state 01' African­
AlIlerican literary interpretation was well reflected by the tale : obscured by
lite shadow 01' a hermeneutical technology produced as much to confine as
111 illuminate hlack expression, pieces of African-American Iiterature were
('asually, if elegantly , sorted into categories (of period, genre, an d " sensi b­
a1i(y") - but few were actually being read as a dynamic activity capable 01'
1r;llIsfigurillg both reader and the textual event of meaning. Since then. a
vnitable explosion in interpretive activity and acumen has taken place. so
Iha( \Ve flnd ourselves on the threshold of an entire revaluation 01' (he vcry
llIlage and import of African-American Iiterary and cultural tradition.
A key ingredient of this critical revolution, indeed its enabling condi tion
;lIld interior rationale, was the vigorous debate taking place among black
IItis!s and intellectuals about the function of literary expressioll in the wider
l'll 11(cx(s of black liberation and evoluti o nary black consciousness. On the
IIne hand, literature was seen as both an inadequate defense against the
lIarshness 01' African-American experiellce ("ain't seen no poem stop a '38 " -
Ilaki Madhubuti') and as an exile into the "dead letter office" of an alienat­
"n~ duplicitous, and oppressive medium ("so many words, but none of them
4
.11 e mine" - Amiri Barak( ). On the other hand, writing, properly reconceived
;lIld directed as utteranee and as aet, was advam:ed as a signal instrument 01'
l'I¡\tural liberation. But, for thois revolutionary alignment 01' voiee and pur­
plise to be achieved , the "new breed " (Peter Labrie, al'ter James Brown)' of
hlack artists would need to fashion a dynamic ne\V poetics: expression would
h\:<':l)l11e precminently theatrical (" the poet must become a performer" ­
I ;·III·y Neal) ,(' perfo rmance would become transitive and transformative CArt
1' , cltange . .. poet ry <lfl J writillg .. . mus! 1110ve (swing) . , . this is what l11 a kes
hl. lI.:k clllture go" - .lames T. Stcwa rt ),? ami. fin all y, the artist wo uld herself
hn,:ollle <ln cxc l11 plary perfomlancc ( "Dllll 1.. Leclls a poem .. ." - Marvin X) .~
/:0
 '" 1 N " ' I '\' ,\N I I 1111 NI,I
1'his ht)o k ~)fl i.:n; ¡¡ p ldilll ll l:l IVnpllll l,i'"ll1 f lln 1" 1 f.. nil.lIi vc cthos inf,lrlll­
ing A fri l:u n- A merican m o J c llli\ ll1 W ll ~'h 1,1.1\ ~ 1IIIIdl 1111 . 111 " Jcsignatcs that
politico-aesth l:tic fcrlllcnt .... isi ll l' Wllh Ihl!' 1;1,11 k tllll..lll lllSlless movement
of the 1960s, a stil1-1ivin g mOIl1Cllt in whieh ;¡ "l l st~lIll C'd eITort to transfoml
re presentation into presentatio n bec<lllle the ha lll1lart.. 0 1' a fresh ehapter in
the history of Afric tlll-American cultural expressioil . T hough in my conclud­
ing chapter I wil1 argue that this modernist upheava l' s lcngthcn ing shadows
continue to tinge today's critical and creative scene , my chief concern wiIl be
the era known, after Larry Neal, as 1'he Black Arts M overnent, the period
extending somewhat beyond the defining decade of 1964 (the ycar of Ma1cohn
X's r llpture with the Nation of Islam) to 1974 (the year of Baraka's renunci a ­
tion 01' a bsolllte black nationalislll) , du ring which the category of "blackness"
servcd as tho dominant sign of African-American cultural activity. Such a
o escriptio n might wel1 join hands with the satiric dem ythologization pro­
po unJed by "New Hla c k Artists" like 1'rey Ellis - whose thumbnail "history"
01' the M ovement catalogues such items as Eddie Murphy' s angrier-than­
tholl poelll of"pu re" blackness, "CiI1 [sic] my landlord," and Reginald Hudlin's
"peoples ads" lor a comlllodilled Afro-Power militancy (one item: a com­
bination spatula-backscratcher-toi\ct bowl brush , al1 with black clenched-fist
handle-endsf - in portraying the Black Arts Movement as a dangerously
closed systern of doctrines and fashions , and, in particular. as a self-deceived
diSCOllrse declaring itsclf unambiguollsly to he a mode of authentic being un­
precedented in African-Americttn history. And yet the profound reorienta­
tion of energy and vision which took place among African-American thin kers,
writers, perforrners, and thei r é1l1diences during this period, centering on
consideration of an intentional, autonomous understanding of the black self,
took place through dynamically varied experiments concerning the prov­
enance, nature, and teleology of the sign of blackness. Freed from slavish
adherence to both the proclamations of its most ardent partisans and the
caricatures of its more antic detrélctors, we can see the Black Arts rvlovement,
not as creed or even as method, but rather as a continuously shifting field of
struggle and revision in which the relations arnong politics, representation ,
history , and revolution are productively revalued.
In order best to move within this fteld with corresponding openness , I have
chosen to discuss the polymorphic movements of"blackness" within a number
of genres and artists: from drama amI vernaclllar sermons to Ed Bullins and
Sonia Sanchez, from Ne\\' Wave jazz a nd autobiography to Ntozake Shange
and Rev. C. L. Franklin. A more precise sketch of the design housing these
explorations follo\\'s near the end 01' this Prologue, hut in keeping with the
need to read ¡he Black Arts Movement lIis-a-11is the slIpplcness ofits inquiries
rather than through predeterm ini ng fra meworks 1'(.1 li" c li rst to nutline the
complex retation of blackness to pe rformanl.'c tha t ¡n lúlll !!> m y approach .
B/ackness, in faet, emerges f1'om close SCI" lI lillv ni tlll' 1I111\JCnll;nt's Icudi ng
thco rists - Malcolm X, Baraka, anu Nc:a l chl\:I' '' llhllll' 111 " 111 as a ILTIll o f
/11
I' RolIHill 1
1I11111iple, onell CIlllllicling.. implications w hieh, takc n together , signal black
AlI1crica's clTo r! lO articulate its own conditiolls 01' possibility. At one moment,
hlack ncss may signify a reified essence posited as the end of él revolutionary
"lIlctalanguage" projecting the community toward "sometning not included
here"; at another momen!, blackness may indicate a self-interpreting process
which silT1uItaneously "makes and lInmakes" black ioentity in the ceaseless
flux 01' historical change. Several animating tensi o ns prol iferate from this
ahiding debate on blackness: Is the self 01' blackness an empirieal prese nce, a
goal, or a necessary fiction to be ultimately disca rded in the higher interests
of communality? Is there a language cogna te wi th this black seHhood , o ne
capahle of legitimating its most daring political and psycbie desires - and, if
so, does this language exist prior to the intended rupture with the past or is
it an elreet of that intention? On the other hand , is traditional language,
cncrusted \\'ith the legacy of alienation, an imprisoning meebanism or evasive
lure? And if a meta-Ianguage can be forged - for example, in the performative
idioms 01' music, polemic, or rebellion - ean its styles of emancipation, didac­
ticism, disruption , and celehration be reconciled in a coherent expressive
discourse?
No doubt these are questions haunting the entire history 01' African­
American culture, anO particularly those 01' earlier collective aesthetic move­
ments such as the Renaissance of the 1920s and the less-often diseussed
hebop modernism of the 1940s. What gives such issucs signal emphasis
during the period of the Black Arts Movement - and , in turn , what m a kes
investigation of the Movement 's modemist impulse valuable for an increased
understanding 01' the larger history in which it is embedded - is the way in
which vario liS socio-political and cultural perturbations lent to the categories
of change and difference an inherent, not merely a strategic or historical ,
value. On the one hand , the modernism stirred by Black Arts experiments
must be studied as an adversary culture cultivating styles of dissonance and
refusal in an effort to resist the closures of all received narratives and codes.
In this spirit of ca1culated disorder , the Black Arts descend, sometimes quite
directly , from the dissonant fury 01' the bebop generation. 1O On the other
hand , seemingly anarchic negation is deployed by African-American modern­
ists in the interests of discovcring a space of redeemed value; in this quest for
lIleaning and plenitude, modern black art echoes the romantic metaphysics
01' the Renaissance. 11 But the conjoined impulse toward rebcllion without
r(,.I'.I'en I itnen 1, for a revisionary violence which somehow both subverts and
recuperates the past , delinea tes the distinctive rhetorical fleld 01' Black Arts
speculations on tradition. And any critical appraisal of the Movement's
clTects must account for its animating tensions in terms whieh reduce neither
lhcir contraJictory nor productivc character.
In pa rlieula r, we m ust negotiate the division that persists between our
apprccia tion 01' the eru's exp rcssio ns as text ami our awareness o f them as
J'X!1" rM I11<lnCC <l gap which ma y rortui ltlll sly rcnecl the work s' resistance to
n
 IT 1
11I1 ;1I11,ll h " l In 1.'1111,':11 I ~\ IIl'l'l.tl ídl l .1111 1 id.;:tl1l1ln¡ ,ti \ 1" ' 1\ 11 1:, TIII)se I:rilll:al
lIar ra l ivcs IIml d , l ¡¡ ~ p ilc 1\1,1 ~, y ll l)J1 ll l' ,I~., ·,11 11 lit ,111111 111,'1n hlack cx prcs!ii on
cvi llcc ti polar l)pposit il lll : ull lhe 1)11,' 1t .II Hl Illl \\,,11 ~ IS llIeilS llred against ·
pri vi1egcJ notion 01' "blackncss" whic h IS flos il cd as 1:)( lel'lJal to both the
E uro-A merican " mainslrea m " and, in a poll llcu l liense, lo lhe work itsell'; on
the other hand, the work is tested for co nf'orm ily lo a universally applicable
norm of"the Iitera ry" (a trope ofcultu ral vulue in ge neral) w hich is supposed
to exist both in and o lltside any notion of "blac.:kness," 1 would arg ue thu t
these views share a basic philosophie slIpposition - lhal the work' s meaning
may be locatcd in some standard both prior and external to the expressive
act itself - a supposition rooted in a eommon politica l im plicá tion: that the
a udience's role is to discriminate the " pro per" from the " fail ed " or foolish,
the correct from the deviant.
Let me quickly illustrate by contrasting two justJ y we lJ-knowll a ppraisals
of modern A frican-A merican poetry , H a ki Mad hubllti 's (Don L Lee's)
Dynumile Voiees may he taken as a representati ve o f what 1 will term lhe
"hermenelltics of blackness" : fo r him, black poetry ranges on either side o f
the great divide ol' the Blac k A rts M o vement, which created, in his view, the
tlrst thorollghly " Black " African-American poetry. Wllilc acknowledging
the inftuence of earlier periods, especially the Harlem Renaissance , upon the
new black poet's sense of purpose anJ seriousness, Madhubuti measures
the " unique " status ofthe contemporary. originary bl ack poem by a standard
01' didactic comm itment, " concrete" subject-ma tter. a nd orality , a standard
which no earlier poetry had fully realized. Against Madhub uti, we may place
a representati ve of what J wo uld caIJ the " hermeneutics 01' recuperation," a
reader such as Blyden Jackson , who, in his contribution to Black Poetry
in America (co-written with Louis D. Rubin) , sees likewise in the modern
black poem a " wo rld 01' blackness" where every utterance "so unds ali ke," a
plainness which Jackson sees as threatening the reduction of the poetic to "a
cartoon quality."1 2 However, where Madhubuti sees in the modcrn discoursc
01' blackness a salutary disjunction . Jackson offers lo reassi milatc the era 's
disharmonious outcries to the presumed continuity of a "syntheticall y Amer­
ican" tradition , allowing us to " think of recent black poetry at Ieast as much
in the context of poetry as 01' propogandu. "
In a sen se, Madhubuti a nd Jackson share a crucial presupposition for the
interpretation 01' modern African-American expression: that the a udience's
role was radically reshaped or threatened by the emerging poetic of contem­
porary praetitioners, a poetie which asserted that the peculiar power of black
art was its refusal 01' diJfJculty and the accompanyin g need for professional
exegesis or " translation," and , concomitantly, that the writer-performer , in
questio ning the authority 01' trad itio n, conceived hi s o r her wo rk as nol merely
experimen tal but as un exploration 01' raJ ically altc rnativc eu ll ura l construclS.
C urio w¡ly, hOlh criti ca! cam ps I ha vc becn ,)ull ill illf II.'''p\l nd lo this poten­
tial sllh ver~ i on M lil e uses ¡¡ntl rcecplil)n ¡lIdecd ,,1 thl' h"y ca lcgnry of
1""
P-llOI o r ·¡ 111
hl .tC~ c xpn:lIsio ll hy rea nllllling lile ralhl'l tradiliollal asslImption Ihat liter­
¡¡III II: is all inevita ble l,;Ollscq llc ncc uf being, and thal its "natural " role is
(¡ 1 mimc an CX reril~nce wllosc él ut hcnticity is guaranteed by being enacted
IIIlkpcndcn tly 01' any rcllection upon it. Both Madhubuti and Jackson thus
;In:cpt Ihe opposition 01' expression-as-structure and ex pression-as-event,
¡¡lid cach undertakes the task ofmaintaining the purity 01' one notion against
11!l' iniq uity oC the o ther. Behind this opposi tion stand a host of other, rather
lallliliar, dualities which permeate hoth interpretive fields: assimilationism
wrslIs nationalism , language versuS self, form versus content, oral versus
writlcn , craft versus politics (as in Jackson ' s dich o tomy of " poetry" and
" propaganda "), etc. It is the burden of my argument that unless we change
place from a criticism erected on such contraries, locating our discussions
al Ihe challenging juncture 01' ideological and aesthetic concerns, we will
IK' doollled to retrace tbe conceptual do-si-d o marked out by the secret
partners of recent years, the Schools of A bsolute Blackness and C hastened
1lnivcrsality - a nd, further, we will fail lO perceive o r experience the era 's own
hracing lesson: that " blackness" is not <In inevitable object, but ral ller a
IIlolivated, constructed, corrosive , and productive process.
Having said this much , 1 !'eel myself to be at a crucial methodological
nossroads - for many 01' US, the next move has inevitably been either to take
"11 one side or the other in revisionist fashion , 0 1', in cursing both houses,
piously or defensively to adopt some version 01' the (post-) structuralist/New
( 'rilical bromide about meanings , whether rhetorical or discursive, bein g " in
the works themselves ." The choice so constructcd has heen misconccived ,
and I would propose two alternative respo nses to the critical polariza ti o n
ill studies of African-Amerícan mode rn ism that 1 have been outlining. First,
Ihe argulllent between Madhubuti and Jackson concerns the historical and
ilkological issue that , 1 am hinting, we as critics are as much challenged by
loday as are the artists ofwholll we dare speak ; that is: What is the continuin g
IlIcuning of the Black Arts Movement, o n what terms shall \Ve calculate
ils aims , achievelllents, a nd legacy? For our current disputes over , on the o ne
Itand, the propriety 01' ex tra-textual criteria, ami , on the other ha nd, the
plllitical motivation s of various neofo rmalism s, should be seen as displ ace­
lIlents or exten sion s of the esscntial inqui sition 01' expressivity as a valid
"alegory 01' value , a questioning to which wrilers such as Madhubllti ami
Jaáson were alike respo ndin g. The positions rcpresented by Madhubuti and
I;lckson can be read as variant responses to the c1 aims of r-upture and resist­
;IIICC which were at the core 01' the "black aesthetic" _. c1aims which, whaLever
Iheir ahsol ute philosophie ami material validity , fundamentally altered the
Ilalllcwork (conceptual ami institutional) in which we operate today . Thu s,
11IIl' Icsso n 01' lh e rra cturing of commentary into the poles 1 ha ve described is
Ihal Ihe laclics we empl o y in decoding and recoding modern blac k art sli ll
111111 in Stlllll' lneasurc 011 ()lIr in le rprclalioll 01' lhe a rt istic re volution whose
.,. iuin s sland no w al a genc ra tillll '" 1I.: 1110 VC, on ou r att it udc to wa rd the
/ '/
 11,I J 1 ~ l'1t" .\ N I' 1 111' S I' U I'IH II Ulilll

progla lllllla Il l' I..h:daml l! Ins !t mi Pl '¡ l Hui Pi'll olllld 111 ~" . wll ¡eh ca rry lhe Blal'k ("111,1 ,/ 1011''''' 1(,\'('1 l/lit! 1/ l//IIr" "({pid le/lllw (/1/(/ 1 1/l'l/rd SiI!J1('()I1C

Arts MOVCl1 l\; nl '~ Ilc ighl /lracsl ln:IH:. II1lllJh'l"l ,11 ,lI ld p(ilítical visions. 11 sl/ll//I'

RelaleJl y, \Ve mus! gr~lsp wi l h lll ote pal ll\: I1 I:llll y II\)w this argurncnl
"Uroll/as (/1/(1 sislcr.l, my I('x l Ihis !J1orning is the 'BÜlckncss o/ (~/

derives fro m !\ frican-A mcricall modernism '!oI d W II sIl uggle for self-definit;on.
Hluck I/Css. .. ,

Indeed, ) wOllld suggcst Ihallhe two eritical positions o utlined a bovc- one
stressing the Black Arts' most vocilcrous ideological c1 a ims for an auto­ A 1/(1 (/ congrega Iion o/ I'oiccs (lI1swered: " 7'lwl h/ackne.ss is mosl black
nomous blaek poetics; the other sccki ng to situate black poetics within a hrolher, II1Os1 hlack ....,
larger, more continuous, and more tcxtured fiel d 01' expressive desire - echo
an argument taking place among practitioners themselves a bout the naturc "'" Ihe heginning ... "
of blackness, performance, and the mod ern African-American subject. To "Al Ilw I'ay slarl," lhey eriee/.
establish a paradigm for this discoursc - which we sha ll see emerge through­
" . .. I !Jere 1\'0.1' hlackness ..."
out this study in the d isparate arenas of theater, music, poetry, preachin g.
and criticism itself .~ rd like brietly to contrast t\Vo passages which o lTer ., Preac!/ ir ... "
bril1iantly compressed rctlections of the kcy issues involved: the sermon on
" ... amI I he sun ..."
the "blacklless of blackness" in the Prologue of Ellison's Inl'isihle Atan and
Clay's c1im actic speech in Baraka's /Julclunan. Each text privileges the rela­ " The S1ln, Lowd . .. "
tion of blackness to performance as a vision of A frican-American identi ty,
" ... \Vas h/oody red . .. "
grouping arollnd that topos a complex of problems integral to any discus­
sion of modern African-American expression (problems concerning the rel a­ "Red .. ."
tions of history to tradition , revolution to repetition, textuality to orality);
"Now Mock is . .. " {he preacher shouled.
but they a1so do so in order to figure quite distinct theories of both bl ack
selfhood and its formation by and in the "play" of a renovated languagc of "Bloody ... "
black identity.
"1 .mid hl(/ck is ... "
"Preach il, hrolher . .. "
II
" ... an' Mack ain', ... "
This grid , ideal ,

intersecting sq Llares,
.. Red. Lo\Vd, red: He said il's red!"
system , thought,

"Amen, hro!/¡er . .. "

western \Vall ,

migrating phocnix,
"!3Iuck lvil! gil you .. ."
death to all .

"Yes, ir lvill . . ."

Michael Ha rper , "A pol1o Vision:
The Nature of the Grid " 14 " Ycs, i! lI'ill .. ."
" ... on ' hl(/ck IFOn ' ! . . . "
Let us begin with ElIison's passage:
"Nall', it 11'0 /1 ' 1 "
'
l not only entercd the music but descended , like Dante, into Íts
depths. And heneo{h Ihe slvijiness o/Ihe 17m lempo Ihere \Vas {/ sloll'er " " do ... "
lempo ({mIo cave a/1(/ I enlered ir and looked around {[mI hearel (1/1 . . (//l' il dO/l·I. "
old IVOIIWIl singing a .1¡Jirilllal as./ú/l o/ Welt.l'chlller:: IIsllmlll'lIm, and
" /Il/lIclllillft ..
heneolh Ihal laya Sli/! lowcr In'el on Ivhich 1.1"1/ 11' alwtlllflj /l l girll//('
color oI illor)' pl(!ading in a I'fIÍi' c (ikt' /JI)' lIIol/¡n ',1' (/.\ \/ /. ' .1'/ /) 0,1 1>¡'¡(lre ,,.,, 11/111 '1111, g/oIT . g / on ', 0 1/ 1111" ' .I/\I'd, ill Ihc IVIJ ALES
a group o/ s!(/ vcOIvncrs II'/¡o /Jid /il/' 1",1' I/(¡/,¡'¡/ /,,,tll ', . /1/11 111 '1011 ' 1/¡,tI JI I'V . I',

HfI
 11tl l N 'J"t'I' , N I> I II H Sil ! I
" /JIudi lI'ill l1wA (' rOIl . .
"JJ/{/ck ... "
" . . . 01" hlack lI'i/l ul1-l11ake you."
( Ra lph Ell ison , IIlJ'isihle ¡\!Jan, 8- 10)
As if deli berate1y reversing the iUusi o nary. demate ria lizi ng movement of
humanist metaphysics - that movemen l of cancellatio n and co ncealment by
which an irreducible expressive open ness is emptied out ¡nto an essential
pro priety - EUison irollicaUy displ aces "whi le mytbology's" fable of the
ori gin witil a story of the beginning-as-bl ackness. A t that begi n ning, the
passage suggests. we fi nd enacted a ser ies ol' com plex differentes and disloca­
tions , first im<l ged here as a "descending" thro ugh cult ura l rea lms (hence
Dante, Ilamenco, and yiddish keit are invoked even as the " spiritual" world of
A frican-American descent is evoked). In what the novel will laler teach us
to cal! a R ineharteu n Cjuestioni ng 01' the fluid world beneath any textu al
fiel J . l:¡¡¡ s\ II1 ' ~ hero plllnges toward a site where lang uage, in the crucible of
national ami I"amil y romance, has both the impulse to summon a presence
and the rll1w\!r lo d edare its own absellce, to prof1'e r a story 01' the past while
thematiziJlg Ihe performative or fictional character of all such telling. l n the
perfo rma nce 01" Ihe preacher, ElIison thus stages the strategy of the topos 01"
beginn ing as an interrogation of received cultural abstractions asserting
an abso lute p lace 01' origination, those privileged allegories 01' Foundation
by wh ich historicism (ú la Brolher Jack , the neo-Hegelian political thcorist
of the Rrot herhood) and my thography (á la Homer A. Barbee, the blind
poet al' the College's M o ses legend) alike declare their mastery. By thus de­
naturaJizing "history" as an essential , teleo logical display 01' a preconstituted
being-as-blackncss, the passage forces us to consider blackness as a medi­
ated, socially constructed praclice, a process and not a product of discursive
conditions of Slrugg1e.
he generative c nergy ofthe passage thus emanates from a dialogic site-ing
(in the root sen se of somo): the preacher's public speech on blackness. But
in noting ElIison's effo rl to expose the impossibility 01' a pristine narrative
01" beginnings which could stand beyond any rcvisionary performance, we
might \Vell observe that the passage is itself a critical repe tition . a sly ly
belated quotation, 01' another " primordial" sermonic beginning in A merica n
literature: the "blackness of darkness " briefly heard and quickly shunned
by Melvillc's lshmael at what "seemed the great Black Parliament sitting in
Tophet" (vide "The Carpet-Bag" chapter 01' lvlohy f)ick).15 The blackness 01"
Mc1 vil'le's preacher is <In outcry of utte,r negation, a ca cophony o r " wee ping
and wa iling amI teelh-gnas hing" whic h must be al once g limpsed and then
escapcd ¡U¡ I he ena bling, " <¡tumbli ng " preJ ude lo lh \: JI10re Ih unuero us p reach­
menls \)(" <Il1l hori:.\cJ w ha lers. Fnr Mclví ll c' s privilci'CU li gures, bc th ey
queslc rs 01 qU \!sli\lOCrS orille Plim,!1 N'JI11i.!. " hl ; I(.·kfH:s~ " n: lIla illS "pr()fo und"
~"
lin, llI . n( ; 11 1
oud "awol"ul" hui always chlhonian, whilc Ihe lIlore reSOllant ambiguities of
" !luid iuc lltily" are ascribed lo lhe "gnlnd hoo<.!ed phantol11 " 01' a "whiteness­
ol"-whileness." Accepting thc a mbiguity orhis own beginning. E llison at once
eiles Mclville's text as an ineseapable element 01" the A merican scene and
app rop riates its authority over that scene by reshaping it toward a new
'\:nu ." Ellison, in ellect, forces Ishmae\ (and, with him , lhe quintessential
American reader Ishl11ae1 implicitly mirrors from the moment of his inaug­
ural "calling") lo re-en ter the arena 01' the preacher's dark pronouncement,
and then suggests that the text of blackness is precise\y about the internal
contradictions, necessary repetitions, and transgressive revisions 01" any
beginning per se. But further , Ellison ' s text thematizes the prob1ematic of
beginning as performed repetition by dedaring its own di vided status as
expression.
" Blaek will make you ... and unmake yo u": unuers tanding its existence
as irreducibly heterogeneous, blackness establishes and yet al so destabilizes
Ihe very ground of its own figuration , thus simultaneously asserting and
dislocating its o\Vn privileged status as an:h-signifier of Afri ca n-Ameriean
expression. Embracing the "is" and "ain't" of the beil'lg-of-blackness,
anouncing a kind of dark Law of Contradicti o n in place oI the dominant
representations 01' black discourse, this topos presents the possibility of
a differential principie of identity which refuses any effaeemenl 01' the dis­
similar by a totalizing theory of African-American existenee (as in lshmael's
hurried critique of the "negro preacher's" sermon as "Wretched enter­
lainment "). Thus , the sermon works by ditTerential tensions, defining the
cver-shifting "scene" of African-Ame rican language as dialectical : "In the
beginning" \Vas the sign 01" the End, the bloody sun of Revelations (cf. Re!'.
(, :12); black will and it won ' t; love enfolds hate: laughter echoes mo uo él
doub1eness experienced both rhetorically (\\Ion't/don't) and dramatically (the
"ivory" whiteness-of-whiteness calls ror th e preacher's " black" respo nse).
Primordial blackness is thus not a node 01' absolute essence but, rather. the
(re)discovery of the subversive ambiguity of any expressive act, its inceptive
cntanglement in a culture of veiled beginnings and benighted cJosures. It is
Ihe end1essly enigmatic name for a ceaselessly elusive agency, that which puts
Ihe reluctant prophet into the dark cave of the W H ALE'S BELLY as the
prel:ondition 01' his deliverance through and for testifying.
This theory 01' blackness dearly has profound implications for perform­
ative and interpretivc practice alike. But let us explore such possibilities
in (;Oncert with a Barakan vision 01' blackness. Here is an excerpt from
( 'Iay\ cll1gry, and ultimately fatal, disputation with his " ivory" antagonist ,
I lila :
.JusI shut up . You do n'l know w ha l yo u're talking about. You uon' t
kn ow an ylhing. So ju::;\ k eep yOll r slupid mout h c10sed .. . and Iet
lile lal k. _.. T hc bell y rub'! YOll WlLllh.:u me lo do Ihe helly rub? Sh it
li'1
 Inl N 111 V AN I) 1. 111 'i1l 1.1
you don 't L'vcn knllw I]()w. )l pu d01J'1 kl1PW hnw .... Belly rub is not
Q ueens. Iklly rllb is dark pilleeS, with bi¡', hals and oVl'reoats hcld
up with one armo Belly rub hates you .. . They [whites] say, "1
love Bessie Smith ." And don't even understand that Bessie Smith is
saying "Kiss my ass, kiss my black unruly ass." Before love, suffer­
ing, desire, anything you can explain , she's saying, and very plainly,
"Kiss my blaek ass." ... Charlie Parker'! Bird ... would'ye played
not a note 01' music if he just walked IIp East Sixty-seventh Street
and killed the first ten white people he saw. Not a note! . .. You
don 't know anything except what's the re for you to see. An act. Lies.
Device. Not the pure heart, the pure pumping black heart. .. . You
understand? No. 1 guess not. 11' Bessie Smith had ki lled some white
people she wouldn't have needed that music. She would have talked
very straight and plain abOllt the world. No metaphors. No grllnts.
No wiggles in the dark 01' her sou1. . . . all it needs is that simple
aet. ... Ahh Shit. But who needs it? I'd rather be a 1'001. Insane. Safe
with my words, and no deaths, and clean, hard thoughts, urging me
to new conquests.
(Amiri Baraka, Dwc/¡man, 34 - 45)
A vision ofblaekness in relation to being and performance, Clay's speech is
like the preacher's sermon in constituting an ideologieal and epistemologica l
theory 01' signification. But if in Ellison we see the unmasking 01' myths 01'
idealized presence and the disdosure 01' a diacritical dispersal 01' linguistic
force, in Baraka we fed a counter-movement from the impure to the essen­
tial, a dcliberate and violent reversal of Ellison 's deseent which points beyond
the realm 01' figure to its eorrected meaning in a " proper" form o Por Baraka,
the expressions 01' language and the body of blackness are diametrically
opposed; discourse and being are not, as for E1Iison, thoroughly intertwined ,
and the possibility 01' "knowing" begins with an emphatic refusal 01' el 0­
quence's prestige. Blackness, far from being inextricable from the paradoxes
01' its articulation, fina1Iy transcends representation. 11' it is the always pre­
sent yet always coded subject of African-American cultural expression, th e
appearances ofthat culture do not themselves constitute blackness ·- African­
American cultllral expression is not, in faet, the Ihing-in-itsellofthe blaekness
which its pronouncements would invoke.
Clay's blackness "hates" the representational realm of (/.1 ij' in which he,
as a mere preacher 01' the Word, remains endosed in a spuriolls "safety."
It longs for incarnation as literal presence, for the singular revolutionary
act that would "murder" self-diffc rence and heal th e breach betwcen blac k
identity and discourse which the origi na l violc ncc 01' whi Lc ncss I.l pene(.L T be
effusions of a " p umpiJlg" b l:H:kncss wo uld rcp lal,;i,; 1, Il i s\IIl ' ~ pn) jcct ion o"
bla~ k pcrf<lI111anCC as irrc:mlva bly nll'J iatc, pUs il in¡' a " pllle" I.:cnlcr i,ll'ouml
wltid l wo ukl l.'a l ltCI :111 ~:ssl.: nl i:rI , 1.: 1I1]111W('1 ,'d 11I.'IIII1I1I~ 11) Arrican- A l11cril'<l n
)0<·1
PROI ()(jl l l '
hcillg. This uCl1l n becOl1les Ihe authL'ntie "heart" orperronnance, redeeming
blaL~k expressiol1 I'roll1 its condition as diasporic, alienated, and even burden­
sOl11e "device."
Clay's polemic against the " Iie" 01' " metaphor" would shatter the Ellisonian
scene oftextllal construction, a scene which Clay's vision sees as itsel/(and not
simply the hidden \vhite master) imposing the " mask" ofblackness-as-being:
Ellisonian diseourse, Clay seems to propose, points to the self-repeating aet
01' signifying (cf. the play's subway train in its mock-heroic quests 01' endless
return) rather than to the longed-for signified. Th us, the image 01' destrllc­
tion, of smashing the idols of the tribe, yields not silenee but "plain talk," the
sacramental violence in which desire is at last fulfil1ed, not deferred, in which
speech is deployed not deferred to , in which the act ofthe present eanccls the
emptiness of perfonnances heard as ends in themselves.
We may, in fact , note that where El1ison is concern ed with the twisting 01'
ends into their " possibilities" as beginnings, Baraka more apocalypticalIy
would deliver black speech from the cyde 01' servile reiterations we call
African-American tradition, yielding a radicalIy de-su'blimated perspective
utterly beyond the reach 01' a textuality suffused by pathos and limitation .
Thus, thollgh both authors stage their visions of African-American identity
as a performative response to the historical condition 01' blackness-as-exile,
their conceptions 01' that performance and the terms 01' its interpretation are
instructively divergent. Where ElIison ' s questioning 01' origins gives to lan­
guage a productive capacity accomplished only in its performance, Baraka 's
interpellation of a longed-for end envisions playas cither a prerevolutionary
diversion 01', more radica1Iy, a postemancipatory sacrament in which the
codcd meaning 01' historical black expression would become "very straight
and plain," Performative activities, in this world in which we perforce have
our beginning, are at best only approximations 01' the continuolls ideal 01'
lived experience; as deflections 01' genuine revolutionary fccling , they are still
more distanced from the continuous essence 01' truly free aetion. 1n the vision
ofa "simple act " ofliberatory violence, Baraka's hero in fact assigns a signal
role to the pllre gestures of performance. But the authenticity of those ges­
tures is realizcd only through a termination 01' the self-questioning (or, to
rully accept Baraka's polemic against Ellison in this drama, self-falsifying)
lheatrica lit y 01' the subterranean preacher. Performance is not, then , inescap­
ably dissonant and aporetic. BlIt lIntil it is directed to invocation 01' an
indivisible (not invisible!) kernel 01' blackness, becoming both the site and
mechanism 01' a revolutionary transubstantiation , performance can only be a
1I1ockingly faint shadow of a more "real " expression (Clay 's speech, after all,
lInuerslands ilselfto be yct another "text" 01' African-American literary tradi­
tion, amI its eitation 01' ElIison's preacher. unlike the preacher's revision 01'
I\klvillc's Ishmael, reinscri bes a Si~l,ll 01' sc1f-enslavement, no! self-enablement).
Tllu s, lhe prLlphl:cy 01' rcvo lutio l1l1f y bluck I1CSS m ust supersede the E llisonian
slmy (JI' pcrl'ormed hlacklH.:ss as I1l'CCSslI r y liL'tion , displacill)!. the reduclive
H:,
 11.111 N l' 1 l' Y "N l' 1 111 Sil 1,
'\ ;onqll¡;-; I!i" Or sdl· rdl e~iv(; pl ay hy lile n:vclll lilln of a dc-metaphllrized
"dark m:ss 01" Soul -lIcss,"
IJl
i'm
gonna spread out
over America
intrude
my pro ud blackness
all
over the place
Mari Evans, 1, ViJ'e Noir!" I(,
The Ellison/Baraka argument over the nature and telos of performed black­
ness brings us back to the q uestion of interpretive strategies with which
we began this more-than-Ellisonian deferra1. Ellison's view of blackness as
endless beginning suggests th a t its llTeaning does not inhere in any ultimate
referent but is renewed in the rhythmic process of multiplication an d sub­
stitution generated from performance to performance. This is not in the least
to say that Ellisonian performance is arbitrary or empty, just as it is not
abstracted or objectilled. Rather, it is a construct of desire, mobilized at a
site of strugg1e against various forms of ideological c1osure . As interpret­
ive respondents to its performative call , we are asked to acknowledge the
perpetually unsatisfying and contradictory character of its enunciations.
As compensation , we are offered a notion of lhe black text as a dynamic
producer of richly differing signifying perspectives - a fashioner , in fact, of
a world (as the hero puts it near the end of Il1l'isihle Mal1) " seething with
possibilities. "
Baraka's vision, by contrast, asks LIS to negate the effects of such temporiz­
ing displacements , to materialize the presence dissimulated in performance
by moving throllgh the text to the truth ofblackness beyond it (one might say ,
to literally per-form!). The dance of blackness here is, to those who embody
it, spectacularly unconcealed: it possesses a sense and sensuality which
precedes "anything you can explain. " In a sense, Baraka' s blackness stands
beyond the necd for cxegesis as such ; Clay's sermon is ironically directed
to an auditor (i.e., Lula) \Vho, ipso .Iúeto, can 't "understand" it, while his
longing is for a manilcst, nontigural "plainness" which prec1udes any need for
clucidatory discovcry. Indccd , until the "simple act " 01' revol ution provides a
transparent cpistemology 01' black presence displacing the partial perform­
lInccs that inadcq ualcly p rcflgurc it, we may s lJmli sc Ihal it is Ihe uudience
(here imaginl!d (o be more like C1ay l han likc 1,lila) rn lh er Ihan Ihe perform­
ance wh ich rcq lIi res scru liny, Hml (ha( (he pr",,, d lCrS IlIsk is visiona ry a nlllln­
,'ia lio ll 0 1 Ih e ¡s. 11111 di u1l.:el il'al herlll um::ut il' l 'III' II t'l'IIIl' u l o r tlll: i,\ (lile! a¡¡I'I, 0 1'
H(;
l' R () 1 1 I(i I I 1"
hlackness. Fo r Baraka, lhe Fllisolliall play ol"langllagc's dOllbleness is a dup­
licilolls discurd lhal scrcams lhc burdcll 01' black modernism, that imprison­
1I1cnt 01' dclay 01" diasporic wandcring whcrc "multiplicity" is only a scattering
01" bcing-as-blackness and "play" is a hllrtfully necessary postponement of
Illurdcrous redemption. And in a curious SCllse, representation is finally not
problematic for Baraka as it is irresolvably for Ellison , beca use it can never
quite erase blackness so as to mark in repetilion its absence . 1nstead, repres­
entation tcmporarily, ir hurtfully, hides or encodes blackness , allowing the
possíbility 01' its becoming present as a his(ory which would not be a fiction ,
as a wholencss which would no longer enact its own fragmentation.
We are finally in a position lo return to the contrast ofinterpretive modes,
exemplified by Haki Madhubuti and Blyden Jackson, to which Baraka and
Ellisoll might at first blush seem to correspond o After all , Madhubuti , 1ike
Baraka, invokes the extralinguistic standard of " correct" blackness in ercct­
ing a vision 01' the poetic canon, while Jackson , á la Ellison, would refocus
attention on the verbalmedium in which a rather more cc1ectic or "synthetic"
vision 01' blackncss evolves from generation to generation. But ElIi son and
Baraka are alike in just the crucial respcct which sets them aparl I'rom
Madh lJbuti and Jackson: both thcir accounts of the topos 01' performed
blackness begin by asserting that African-American signification arises
through rupture, loss, and the consequent desire for restored plenitude - and
if they disagree about the destination 01' desire's projects, they together differ
from Madhubuti and Jackson in seeing no immediatel.y available cultural
aulhority which could stabilize blackncss's performanccs. In thi s sense, the
Ellison-Baraka contrast offers us a mechanism - an enabling allegory, if you
will - for resituating the critical opposition 01' "blackness" and "universality"
onto a ground internal to African-American discourse itself - i.c., in Ellison
and Baraka, we are offered models 01' the black performative 'text ' which
imply that such an opposition is itself constituent of African-American mod­
crnism , which in turn suggests that criticism might make that opposition its
own su bject.
What might this look like in practice? At this point I'd like to tum back to
the contcmporary criticism of black poetic practice, and admit that 1 have
neglected one global analysis which otTers insight into this critical dilemm al
opportunity - that is, Stephen Henderson ' s "Introduction" to Underslanding
Ihe N elV BIC/ck Poetry' 7 a work whose foundational value for cultural
criticism has bccn richly explored by Houston Baker in Blues, Ideology, and
AFro-American Literalllre,' ~ and whieh 1 no\\' take up as a complex and rare
instance 01' lhcoretical praxis attuncd to black modernism 's performative
ethos. In its amalgam of conceptual and practical reflection , this work gen­
erales a scries 01' tellsio lls and juxlapositiolls which are at once fruitful and,
I Ihin k, in need 01" I"urlher explora tioll. I am particlllar1 y interested in t he
rnr
a p posi l ion 01" lIc lH..h.:rso ll 's slra lcgy u l!coding l ile wo rk 's performalive
l'lIlIn ~ialillns (I he Slf ll cl un d inveSlit; lIiollllllllllsic as " pocl k relcrcllcc" ) - a
x '/

s ll alcgy whidl llp~IIS 111' cxpn:SSIUII u .. I pllil' lI ll: dl y Ildinitc realm 01 play
witlt Iti s cOllcc rt ur " saluJ'atinn ' whll:h SCCII1N 111 u pe ntlc simultaneously as
a goal <ll1lllilllit orlhe intcrpreter':; ~)wn pcrf'ún n:tJlce. Allowing for a rango 01'
tecltnicaL thematic, anO conceptual implications, I le nderson's observations on
the IIses 01' music as compositiona l device collecti vely suggest that expressivc
form , through the topos 01' performance, has become an arena 01' possibil­
ities rather than a fi xed datum. The language of blackness thus becomes a
practice 01' open-ended signifying, so that the category 01' "structure" which
contai ns these remarks implicitly yields a more complex idea 01' structura tion.
tha l power to eont inuo usly rethin.k and revoice centers of cultural v ision
celebrated by Ellison 's preacher and his eongregation. J-lere the motility of
the signifier and the materiality of the signifieo play across each other in a
copiolls displa y o f invention.
A l the same time, however, the very tabulation of tactics and devices
bcgins to formulate a mcchanical or instrumental mode of reading, hinting
at an impulse to reify intention and agency through codification 01' written
forms and oral formulae. Thus, as ir answering the objection that artistie
performance cannot be reduced to a category of precise structural explana­
tion , Ilenderson proceeds to his theory 01' "sa turation, " that arena of a
blackness which texts somehow "manifest" and proper readers somehow
"simply know. " It seems to me that a potentially self-disabling theory is at
\vork here: the black artist is "saturated" by that which he demonstrates ,
asking his audicncc to identify \Vith what they already are. The artist becomes
thereby a curiously reactionary figure, for the work 's performative activity
is denied any transformative force , be it didactic or subversive. Thus, the
energies unJeashed by performance are nnally neutral ized or contained by
the privilege of él mutuaJly "saturated" subject, the artist/audience who
merge into the stabilizing order of o priori, external , reified "blackness."
" Saturation." it seems, becomes suspended in the space ofits own tautology,
aJlowing only the choice between a hypertrophied (soled) and an empty
(s(/tired) blackness: the blacker you are .. . the blacker you are.
What are \Ve to make 01' this apparent division in Henderson 's critical
projcct, this double perspcctive on performed blackness as both energized by
its processual nature ami con fined by an extrinsie, if impressionistic, touch­
stonc'? In faet , there are other issues at \Vork in Henderson 's critique which
might illuminate this tension. Throughout the essay , Henderson takes pain s
to orient analysis ofthe work 's logical strueturc in ideological terms, continu­
aJly observing tha t interpretive acts are never mereJy aesthetic, never free
from the desire for po",er and cultural authority. Most importantly. he notes
that this authority is not given but constructed amI contested , although it
secures its prestige precisely by present ing itsell' as inev ilahlc. In sornc scnse,
it seems to me, t he tcnsion betwec n structu ra ti on and sal \l ralion is a p roduct
01" this ideologiü'll cri tiquc. exprcssing a.-; il UUCS u hilú l\.: al cu evasio n or
slI bwrsion o!" "'wes té rll" cri ti ca l a uthority: lln Ihe \l IIL' !tu nd , we ;Ire givcn a
lIX
l' tU " 11 (j 111',
'\Iidl' to a ,\,, 'Ú ' /II '" ul int ellm: lalion which would withstand the assault of
;Irhit rary dislllissal; un Ihe other hand , \Ve are given a modc of engaged inter­
pre:tal ion which a uthenticates the black reade r's very cultural being as the
('n:thling condition of his/her aeti"ity. Thus, Henderson would simultaneously
nlllcrctize a canon for " understanding" the textual practices of African­
Amcrican 1l10dernism (which would create a formal barrier to cultu rally
Illspecifk, historicaJly relativizi ng, o r other reductive appropriat ions 01' visi on­
ary black expression) and re-ideal ize tbese fonn s as residing a mong " thin gs
1Il1known" (thereby creating a spiritual barrier to imperialist ic or depoliti­
l·i/.cd parsings of black textuality) .
This balance of objectives is, I beJieve, unsettlcd , but it is also unsettli ng
in a very useful manner. The danger it courts is that o f dismantlin g one
IIIdaphysical/ideological system by erecting another, thus recapitulating the
political structure underlying textualist-idealist aesthetics. A t this point we
lIIight have recourse to historical explanation, noting that the uncertainty
,Ir Ihis double proposition a rose in part fro m tbe circumstances of an in stitu­
lional critical voice seeking to negotiate a register somewhere betwecn the
ignorant hostility ofmainstream standards and the sometimes eqlla lly hostile
;lIIti-academiüism ofthe performcrs themselves . Such a discussion is no doubt
slill needed - and my final chapter seeks to addrcss similar performative
lTlICeS in contemporary black critical practices though in admitting it we
sltollld bc wary ofbeing ultimately dismissive ofthe ingenuity ofHenderson's
visiono For we may also see in its inner dynam ic a productive yoking 01'
Fllisonian and Barakan perspectives, which acknowledges the endless re­
wrbcrations of black langllage \-vhile imagining tbe proxirnity to this open
pcrformance 01' a meta-lin g uistic realm 01' inetTable amplitude. Moreover, in
Itis attentive scrutiny of the works themselves for manifestations 01' pe ..form­
;lIlce and blackness alike, llenderson points the way past the criticism with
which we bega n, which followed a proccdure at once mimetic and normative.
at once spuriously demystifying (in its daim to lay bare a " true " black
poctics) and blandly demystifying (in its confident avowal of a guiding poetie
1'llIies). By contrast, Henderson brings us back to the expressive itself as a
Il'alm 01' theoreúcal as wcll as aesthetic/polítical activity , while reminding us
1hat determination of perforlllance's construction in a diversified network of
dlOices and constraints, not bland reiteration 01' reccived ontology or iconicity,
illlpcls aesthetic and critical practice alike.
IV
!'roper c\'aluation 01' words and Ictters
In thei .. phonetic a nd associated sensc
Ca n b ring Ihe peoples 01' earlh
Int o Ih\! ckar li gh t 01' pu re (\)smic Wi sd ol11 .
S l ll l Ra "T,l the Pco plcs 01' Farth " ' ~
,!I)
 11 '1 : ¡,; " I \ .\ N LJ 111 l ' 11 1' L 1
1 "i ~ III.,igh I ICllll liS II ~ 1\\ ( , 1C!!\lI , ' ~ IW~ lu I dll\!!,:d\ .Il' W11Il"1I plllvid.:s a rdinvd
g IOS:i UII l ile p~ rf(II'll1f:1 ti v\!-lh\!\ l l\ · II\.:u l inspiratidll Id .\rri L'an- AIlIL'riL'an II Hld ­
~mis lll. 'lIJe black wo rkcr. we rl!ca ll. flnds hilllsdl' 1.'l1 llleshed ill thc deli wry
systclll 01' written records. wllerc documents assl.lIl powcr tn encapsulatc
co mplcx. movemen t.s 01' social 1Uld personal li fe . AsslIming easy corrcspo nd ­
ence between word and event and among those assigned authori ty to JeLer­
mine their meanings' destinations, the institlltion of letters depends upo n
fundamental, undisturbed ra le ~ 01' in tcll igibility, as \Ve11 as upon the genera lly
unseen lab or 01' its proper 'sorting. ' The entire process of correspondence ­
from inscription to col1ection to provisional classification to disseminatio ll
amI consumption - remains invisi ble and unquestioned , a tidy ideologil7o:l1
circuit oftransmission and ret rieval. But G regory'$ mail c1erk deftly unhinges
this machinery of documen tary self-extension , interrupting the redundan t
relay of pages wri tten and read. He does so nol by any overt refusal ür blun t
sabotage, but rather by a n insoucian.t ironizing of the system's assumed
integrity. F ar from inevitable, stable, and guaranteed, the official delivery of
writing is exposed here as vulnerable to disruption al1 along the way , blH
especial1y in the concealed zones where the actual tasks 01' disposition amI
distribution take place. And it is made to seemal1 tbe more precariou sly
contingent by the worker's syle of subversion , an e1egant cunning that doubles
(and thereby slYlY ruffks) the appearance 01' conformity, undermining rigid
dassificatory norms by seeming lo fulfil1 them with such spirited devotion.
The following chapters engage works that, aboye all , exemplify the rangc
01' intentions and effccts that such disruptive performances entail. They
explore disparate but interlocking figures whose work not only collecti vely
images the traits that most distinguish the period 's activity - a valorization of
critique and change, privileging enactment and improvisation over particu­
lar artifacts, positions. 01' achievements: an aversion to discrete conventions
and genres, leading to an incorpora tive logie of bricolage and narrati vc
experiment; a critical engagement with tradition through acts of mimetic
displacement , appearing by turns demystifying, corrective, absorptive, anel
remystifying - but which, moreover, implicitly asserts the interdisciplinary
nature of African-American modernism's theory and practice. By thus inter­
preting modern ;\ frican-A merican performance through several of its most
distinctive \Vorks, practices, and practitioners, I hope to demonstrate the
semiotic and practical interdiseursivity operating across cultural idioms In
the Black Arts era's struggle for a synthetie vision of bl aek identity.
\Ve begin \Vith exploration of lhe period ' s principal media of performance
activity and speculation, drama and m usic. F oeusing on the evol ution o f
dramatic fo rm as vehicle ofideological inquiry , Pa rt I discusses the new black
theater mo Vement both as ideological projection and ::;elf-consciously evol u­
tiona ry practi ce; Pa rt lJ , eXlntpolaling t he mu sica l ideal ~ lIbtel1d i ng conlem­
rora ry black drama , cen tcrs firJiI ÜIl Ihe jau illn nv¡¡lí\m s of 101111 C oltra ne
illlJ Ihell Il pon the poetic prm:llt:c insr in:d 11" hh "X I" ,t i l1l (!nl ,11 f't:rocil v a nd
'In
'JI
l' I~ ,. I ' " 1111
IIl1lilll d y dca tl .. Dcw lopill¡!. Ihe a hiding Il'llsioll withill Illusical alld dramatic
C)( pn.:SSÍl~ 1I bclwcclI personal and co llt:¡;liVl: voice. Part III shirts to the scene
nI' tWLJ pro l'o undly in fluclIlial ami distinctive elTorts to redefine black agency
as an askcsis 01' self-enactmcnt: first, \Ve \Vill 'sound' the passages of Baraka's
sdr-Iransgressive quest fo r revolutionary voice; second, we shall shift tone
radically in pursuing Adrienne Kennedy's haunting project of self-staging,
a projecl that inventively pressures the efrervescent idealism of Ba rak a's
" postwcstcrn " poetics. Finally, in Part IV we confront the most intricate
IIl:XllS 01' perfo rmative and speculative energy to emerge from the Black Arts
Movcment's assertions of visionary blackness, the cal1 of ve rnaeul a r ereati v­
ily and the response oi' critical theory. Through consideration , nrst, of the
lIlodern chant-sermon , which presents a ¡iteral1y movi ng meditation on the
(rc)l11aking of black historical consciousness, and then of the autobio­
' ra phical (and vernacular) d ynamic of contemporary black eritieism, we
\ViII encounter more directly lhe figure \Vho is, in fact , the central player in
l\I'rican-;\merican modernism's drama of transformative consciousness:
Ihe audienee. C o nceived , as we shal1 see in our opening discussion of theater
IIlanifestos, as precise1y those concerned to join thc artist in revising idea s ()f
hlackness through a synthesis of vernacular awareness and revolutionary
aspiration , the audience is enjoined to bring its energies of perception toward
Iransfiguration in the present tense of enactment, thereby affirming itself as
Idos and co-creator of the modern black artist's expression, be it dramatic ,
llIusical , poetic, or sermonic.
It's only fair to note that a slightly more cOilventiona l approach l1l igh t
h~ to discuss the vernacular first in this study, as "background" and "ve hiclc"
,,1' contemporary experimcntation - and, indeed, we shall see tbroughout the
lirst six chapters that vernacular modalities enrich Black Arts visions to un
l'x tcnt many explicators of the period would nnd surprising, contradicting
,¡s it does constructions 01' the Movement as utterly replldiating tradition.
Ilo\Vever, I believe that this perrneating, central presenee 01' vernacular inl1ec­
IIOIIS wil1 be reduced to an instrumental role iftreated merelY as introduction
lo Ilur critical narrative. Therefore I ha ve waited for the final section to focus
"11 vernacular performance in detail , hoping that it will be seen as itself a
\ ihrant clement of black modernist practice, not merely a funding source of
t.lles. tropes, and tricks from which " real art" draws its inspiration.
111 cach chapter, though in decidedly different languages and domains,
Wl..' witness variants of the Black Arts Movement 's defining efrort to become
,1 ~d r-interpreting entity - a concern that the 11rst chapter on modern black
di ama seeks to clllcidate through a reading 01' the movement's theater
"I"lIikstos. But we \ViII find it necessary upon occasion to intcrrupt our
"\VII mimesis 01' this concentration upon black modernist prodlletion,
.pcdiciully lo lakc stm.:k 0 1' ed1 0e.:; and differences betwcen the matrix 01'
i\lli cun -American pcr!ormam;c "lid Ihe Euro-American avant-garde. For
lI..' ll uinly Ihe asstl ll1t UPl)1l n.'rrcsl!!1Ii1l i. )11 ami il1lerrogat ion 01' meta physical
 rp
t., wlll~ 1 1 (ilqJ Ply' ~ 11 1.111 I II'I~. illll lldll n:d liS as hal billgc r uf'
1'1 \!S 11 11 111" 01 1
!lIad A rts pra\ is i:. Ui> 111,11 ~4:d 111 I he l',\ 1\(' 1i II I ~ II tid tIlca ti i,:al i1Yor the n ll)L!0n
Wesl. Vet thal r~IJic al n: plIdiat iu n uf'cllll vcn llollal d ral llaturgy, a rcpudiati on
fóunoed in thc L:onjunction 01" ArlHutlia n "~ r u d t y " a nd Bred,tian '"alicnation."
often sets the deconstructivc instru men ts 01' perfo rma nce againsl apprchcnding
L:onscio usness . Even when consciousncss is to be intensificd by its immcrsion
in an iJea lized mise-en-scenC' (Grotowsk i; the L iving, Theatrc), we find it set
in opposition to the intricate burdens ofhistory a nd the sinuous responsibilities
01" rcmembrance.
Because our L:omparative discussion s of A l"rican-American ano Eu ro­
A merican performance will be generall y lOcal and L:o nL:ise.2U we might do well
he re, bcfore setting forth on OUT journey through Blaá A rts speculations and
practiccs, to sketch a more synoptic acco unt of the encompassing frame
of reference withi n which contempora ry A frican- American performance and
its criticism ta kes shape . The very prestige of the term "performance" in
contemporary culture can be traccd to modernity's reccssion from the Rea1. 21
Specifically, performance acquircs significant theorctica l capital once
secular revisions of a theocentric tradition ha ve beg un to struggle toward ne\\!
idioms of knowledge, history, and value. With the Ca rtesian and Kantian
objeclification 01" self and worlo , respectively, modernity arrives as a "science
of man " c1aiming subjectivity as a privileged panopticon immunc lo the
histrionics of rhetoric, social commerce, and political context. In one sense,
lhe advent of modernity constitutes a new chapter in the West's narrative
of self-scrutiny. establishing meaning through provisional interpretations,
rath er than by faithful transcription s ora transcendent verity. Vet by seeking
to recuperate the European subject as reliabl e center of meaning, modernity
also participates in an ongoing effort within western discourse to contain
the disruptive energies latent in unauthorized concepts of performance.
Thus, modcrnity as Enli ghtenment. however m ueh a break from medieval
structures of thought, can also be seen as the apogec of a western tradi­
tion of occidental " antitheatricalism " that , as Jonas Barish a nd David
Marsh al l have d emonstrated , sought to banish the discursive amI ontological
"s ubversiveness" 01" all mere appearance in order to secure a transparent
representational order?' Wherever the pcrformative had previousl y con­
noted impulses tran sgrcssing logic (be they the agitations of desire, dream ,
ideology, rebellion , or any other site of intertextual transaction) , it \Vas to be
replaced by a notion of performance as a c10sed mimetic ecollomy, gua r­
anteed by absolute visibility and accountability , in the interests of a stable
continuum 01' subject, knowledge, and - not incidentally - sta te .
But whereas in the antitheatricalism characteristic of p remodernity the
di sruptive potential ol' performa nce was acknowledgcd as a ll too actual él
th reat (hence lhe speclI lar hyperho lc floteo by Barish il1 <lIllit hca trica l lracts
rm m Pla to lo Pryn nc), in Ill otlernit y pCrf()rnHIIICC'~ 1I~~ tól hi li / i n g cne rgy is
Ilcga tco as a SCmi(l lic plmlllllsm anu lüg k:" I 1..' ''1 11 , NI! 1\ 1I1 ,'~'r 1III'ki ng a l lhe
r)1
'''-K''' ;''\·f' -' ... - - - - ­
l:dgcs uf thl' r l \' r~'1 ;IS a kind uf' il1lpish , licc llscd Vil:c lig ure. p\.!/forll1a llcc is
cmpli\.!d 01' uny alfl:ctive or inlcnliunal ]1owcr. becol11ing instead, rather li ke
Macbetlú da gger. a oeccption whose threat líes in its ability to persuade the
subjcct ofits illusory agcncy , rather than in any direct impact on (and within)
the subject herself. Thus oep1cting performance 01' any unca nn y po tentiality,
lU oJernity adopts what \Ve may term ab-scene vision.
It seems lo me no coincidence ... and 01" signa l import to the Black Arts
Movement's fascination with vernacular-inspíred insurgency - that the
Enlightenment's evisccration 01" the perl'ormative sphere should occur alo ng­
side a pervasive concern \Vith otherness a nd a compensato ry fetishization of
writing as foundation 01" authentic selfhood. C hallenges to E uropean culture,
whether in te rnal or colonial , were freguently transformed into confronta­
tions between nature and imagination, provoking twin genres tha t betrayeo
the Enlightenment's occult obsession with antithetical spectacle: the subHme
and ethnography. For what characterizes discourses on both " natura l" and
cultural monstrosities is the unpresentability o f their putative objeets, wh ich
remain immcasurable or impenetrable " others" to ep istemologieal a nd
ethnological perception. The uncanny , be it mountain or native, is ultimately
factitious , for what the sublime and ethnography stage is not so much alterity
itself as the interpretive hubris by which oifference is apprehended. The
object is defin ed as extern a l to the viewcr's mastery, not in genuine recogni ­
tion of its othcrness but only to legitimate the observer's own " anthropolo­
gical " prim acy .
Thus, as we shall furth er observe in C haptcr 7's ex.ploration of modcrn
vernacular performance, the development of an ethnological strategy rol'
ne utralízing invi sible and recalcitrant performances thro ugh offstage COI11­
mentary occurs exact ly when European culture is itsel f ' othered,' facing its
own disappearance as mythic center in él Ptolemaic cultural design. So, too,
conjuration ol' natural wonders resta ges a thTeatened fiction of mastery,
reflccting m ode rnity 's characteristie doubleness as a putatively original a nd
yet suddenly belated mode of self-prcscntation. The re-emergen ce of a more
transgressive idea of performance within modern western culture must be
seen as an internal resistance to this legacy of Enlíghtenment's sublil11ated ,
ethnocentric antitheatricalism.
Metaphors of performance prolifera te, un surprisin gly. in those di sco urses
that , however derivative of Enli ghtenment, begin by questioning it s hierar­
chical rel atio n betwcen the observer ano the scene of knowledge. Such revi­
sionists as Freud, Nietzsche, Darwin, Marx , and Saussure decenter mythologies
of the subjeet, logic, hermeneutics, the state, and the scntence with self­
sta ging disco urses of desire. rhetoricity, chance, ideol ogy, and signification.
And in the theatre ibelf Büchner, Strindberg, Pirandello, Artaud, a nd Brecht
drivc from lhe boards a dassica! paraoigm of drama tic presentarion , with its
lixcd J istancc between a uthorita tive tex.t and mise-en-scCl7c, by defa miliarizing
thcatr ka l narra tivc. charactcr, <lu thorship . acting, ano reception.
jl ' \
 1111: N '1'1'1'\' Í\ N Ir '1"11 J: 1'1 1 I I
N¡;verlhdcss. I hi~ d cad y st il )WI.,I\\ 11I 11,k l ll i', 1 vll lllri/a li oll 01" pC I"­
J"o n nullcc over Ihe l11ean ing Ih al wu uld UllI UllI lI le II h ll s 11 01 rai lcd also lo
recapitulale modermly's impc ri<Jlislk grasp 1(11 a Ulhoril y (lvcr Ihe cvenl.
lntcnl on displacing lhe subjcd as <111 d h:ct uf la nguagc, psyc hic apparalus,
episteme, or so me other sll"uclllrt!, d iverse slranJs 01' Euro-American moo ­
ernism converge in h urling agency inlo a "crisis" thal menaces individ ual
will and fractures communali ty. A bove all , Ihese modes oC ironic distllr­
bance have not produced a vision or methodology of a udiencc identifica­
lion sufficicnt to lransform mimetic designs inlo what we shall term in lhe
context of African-American theatrical experimenls "meth exic," 01" parti­
cipatory and collective, practices. I suggest, then, that in lhe backgro und o[
Blac k Arts speculations we keep in vie w Euro-American modem isl pe r­
fO mll:lllCe as a double gesture: on the one hand , a n impulse 01" revolt thal
would tra nsccnd modernity by ackn owledging tbe failure oC hegemony to
eradicate difference, be it " indigenous" or "foreign "; on lhe other hand, a
submission to modernity's metaphysical logic, allowing evasion of historicaJ
imperatives that remain either beyond its conceptual reach or ol1tside its
practical l1nderstanding.
As we shall note at opportunc moments, African-American modernism , by
contrast, augurs a sacramentalized performative present in order lo redeem,
not den y, the promissory notes of historicized subjectivity. Thc freedom it
seeks dwells within , not beyond , collcctivc rcsources of memory and desire.
Devc10ping parameters suggested by lhe Ellison/J3araka dialogue, pe r­
formers in the era of the Black Arts Movemenl variously pursue a syntax of
enactment capab\c of mobilizi ng spectatorship as u simultaneollsly sensate
and scnse-altering body, cupable at once ofunruly critique and revolutionary
re vision. Avatars of those silenced and abjected by modernity and western
modcrnism alikc , they comprehend di asporic consciousness not merely as
conccit but as malerial condition . And so their experiments in dramalic,
musical , poetic, vcrnacul a r, and critical form must at every moment ncgoliatc
momcntous quesliolls of sacrifice, sedition, and self-realization - but always
\Vith stylc, al wuys wilh gui1e: ,~"ump!, ;nlo ¡he hox: ¡hrough lhe /eg'\ - ~' lI'islú,
inl/l II/(' hag: al/¡/ .1'/1 01/ .. .
Notes
It :tll'h Lllb\l ll , tllll/si/¡/¡' M(//I (New York: Randolll HOllse, 1952), p. 22.
2 AI IIII i B llra~a ILeR lli -'Il ltes l, Du/cllI/wll (jff(1 The SIl/re: [\1 '0 Play.\' (New York:
W illi:1I11 Mil i rll\\', I (1M), p. 44 .
J I luk l R. M:ldhllhuli IDtm L. Lec] , D)'lIomi/ e Voices (Dc troil : Aroad side Press.
1'1'/ 11 1'. IX
·1 B,II,d" I, 11/1' SI'{I ',· . p. (,(,.
1'1' '' ' 1 I al ,,,!.:. " l ll l' Nl'w Brceu ." in B///e!-- l-"il'l' ('<ls. I.cRll i .ltlncs anti Larry Ncal
I Nn\' Y' II \. W illl:1I 11 M OI"r\)w , l i)ó~ ), pp, 64 11­
n 1,111 IV Nl': d , " ;\n cl Sl lIlI ,' SW: 1I 11 0 11. " ill flllI l ·l, {-¡ r/' , p, (l );.l
'11
l' 1< I ) I 1) I : I I Jo
-'allll'sT. Sll'warl , "('he Ikveloplllelll orlhe Black Rcvo lutiollary Artist ," in Block
Fi/'t ,. pp. 4 ).
X M ~ trvin X, " ))on L L~ Is a Poem," citcd in ¡he Block Aes/he/ic, ed . Addison
G nyle, JI'. (Ncw York: Doub l\:day. 1972), p. 196.
'1 Trcy Ellis. " Thc New Dlaek A rtist," in Callaloo 12, no . I (Winter, 1989),33 - 42.
10 Sec hic Lott, " Dollble Y, Double Time: Bebo p's Politics of Style," Callaloo 11,
no. 3 (Sulllmer, 1988), 597- 605.
1I Sec Ilouston A. Ba ker, Jr.. J'vfodernism l/mi lhe Uarlem Re/1aissal1 ce (Chicago:
Un iversit y of C hicago Prcss, 1987).
12 Blydcn Jacksoll, "Frotll One 'New Negro' to Another, 192:l-1 972," in Blyden
Jacks on and Louis D. Ru b in , Black Po!? /ry in Americl/n (Baton ROllge : LOllisi~trla
State lJ niversity Press , 1974), p. 93.
13 David Sm ith 's nearl y decades-old la lllent in an im po rta n t essay that " there. is a
p<tucity of Iiteratu re" on the Black Arts Movelllent remains essentially as true
loday as it was then (see David Slllith, " The Black Arts Movclllent and ils Critics,"
American U/era,-y /lis/o/)' 3, no. 1 (Sp rin g, 1991),93- 110). Ka lamu ya Salaam's
(forthcollling) The Mogic 01' .!/lju: An Apprecia/ion 01' /he Black ArI.\· Movemen l
(Third World Press) promises an imporwnt response to Slllith 's call fo r a comp re­
hensive account of the diverse strands of the Mo ve ment's activities, ineluding a
fresh apprcciation 01' its natio nal (beyond New York) parameters a nd a ca reful
historieal rende ring of its iJI-appreeiated regional foundations. See a lso Reginald
Martin's /shmael Rel'd and ¡he N ew Black Aes/h e¡ic C,-i/ics (New York: S1. M <lrtin's
Press, 1988) and Phillip Brian Ha rper's "Nationalism and Socia l Division in R1aek
Arts Poet ry oft he 19605," Cri/icallnquir)' 19, no. 2 (Winter , 199:1),23455 , both
impo rtant contributions to any assessment of the periodo
14 Michacl Harpe r, "Apollo Yision: The Nature of the G rid," in H arpe r, /-lis/orv is
rOl/r 011'11 lIear/hea / (Urbana: Un iversity of 1Ilinois Press, 1971), p. 9\.
15 Hennan Me lville, Mohy Diek , ed. Harrison IJ ayford and He rshel Parkcl' (Ne\\
York: W. W. Norton, 1967) pp. 17- 18 .
16 Mari Evans, " Vive Noi,-.''' in Ullders/(fl1ding /he New Block Poe/rv, ed. Stephcn
Henderson (New York: William Morris, 1973) p. 248.
17 Henderson, ed., UllderslUl1ding ¡he New B/acle Poe!ry , pp. 369.
I S Houston A. Baker, JI". , Blues, Ideolagy , and A/i-o-American Li/eral/He (C h ieago :
U n iversity of Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 74- 88.
19 Sun Ra , "To the Peoplcs 01' the Earth ," in Block Fire, p. 217.
?O By way ofcontrast \Vith the present study , see Craig Werner's Playing /h e Clwllges:
From Afro-Modemism /0 /he .!an fmpulse (Urbana and Chieago: Un iversit y
01" Jll'in o is Press, 1994), which o ffers an ,i nsightrul account of twentieth-century
;\frican-Allle rican aesthetie deve!opment in "polyrhythmic" relation to E ur o­
;\merican postmodernism. In We rner's suggest ive reading, "the jazz impulse"
fllllctions as a vector of cultural subversion that euts across racial barriers in
(post)moderl1ist literary production. shaping a "genealogy" that cOlllprises often
' invisible' nodes ofeross-fcrtilization - for example, Barthes and M orriso n, Derrida ,
and Chesnutt.
:: 1 Througho ut this discussion I assume the following dist,i neti on betwecn the terms
" Illodernit y" a nd "modcrnism": where " modernity" rcfcrs to the conceptualization
oC the subject in the Cartesiau and Enlightenment revolutions of epistemology ­
and lo t hcjuridicaJ, liberal. a nd imperialist discollrses by which that notion oft he
subjecl becomes enfranch ised in the aftermath of Enlightenment - "modernislll"
rekrs lo cultural praetices produced self-conscio usly in struggle against modern­
il y', coneeptual regirne ancl its eonti l1uatiQI1 in posl- R omantic cult ura l history. As
\Ve shall se~ at " ariolls pllin ts ill Ill is sludy , ;\ rr ica n-Á m~ric<tn mo dernisTTl both
q
 11,111,,1 1 1\ . \NIl IIII. ,<; U . I

1'l'hnCh I h c ~;l'11I,,,kIIIlSI 1'1 : lcl l ~~ 11 1\,,1 "11111 111 \ V ,IIl' l'IllI\:cived as n:vu lt~ aglJ insl
11Iodc lllil y \ , Wuy. ;r lid depa I h fro lll 11H'l ll ill ~ ,,1111 :IS I he)! ;m: lhell1 ~clves pc n.:cived
lo be evasiolls of a Ilheralion p m xis n:spu ll~i vc 11) pcrcc lvcd co nJilions of "b la ck ­ 72
ness ." T hou gh, as noleJ abo ye, my I"efe rellcc lo " A fric<ln- Ame rican modc rn is m"
throughoul lhis study is mean l lo conjure l he pe ri od kn own as the Black ¡\ rh
Movement (induding the fra me of its immediate prelude and cOlltinuing after­ PERFOR MAT I VE ACTS A N D

ll1alh), 1 believe thi s general distinetion between African-All1erican expressive

culture a nd Euro-A merica n rnoderni sll1 applies to ea rlier periods, as well , such as GENDE R C ONST I TUT I ON

those explored by Lo tt , Baker, and Wemer, all10ng others. See also A ldo n Lynn
Niel se n\ Hlack Chanl: Language.l' o/ Aj/'ican-American POSlmodernÍ.\"m (Cam­ An essay in phenomenology and femini st theory

bridge: Cam bridge Universil y Press, 1997), which cchocs W c rn er's work in offer­
ing an innovative and penetratillg a pproach to lhe imbricatio n of black ¡Ind
western (post)modernist poetics in lhe period fo ll owing W o rl d War H.
22 See, respectively, .lonas Barish , The Anli-lhealriclIl Prejudice (Berkeley : University Judith Bulle,.
ofCalifornia Press, 198 1) a nd D avid M arshall, Tlle Figure oITlreater: Shajieshury.
J)cj!Jc. Adalll Smüh. amI George Elio!. (New York: Columbia Uni vers ity Press,
1986). SOlll·ce: TIi('a lre .10111"11(// 40(4) (198X): 519 531.

Philosophers rarel y think about acting in the theatrical sen se, but they d o
ha ve a discourse of 'acts ' that maintains associative seman tic mea nings
with theories of p(3rformance ami acting. For example, John Searle 's 'speech
acts,' those verbal assurances and prornises which seem not onIy to refer to
a speaking relationship, but to constitute a moral bond between speakers,
illustrate one of the illocutionary gestures that constitutes the stage o f the
analytic philosophy of language. Further, 'acti on theory: a domai o ormo raJ
philosophy, seeks to understand wha t it is 'to do ' prior to any claim of what
one Ol/glll to d o. Finally, the phenomenological thcory 01' 'acts,' espouscd by
Edmund Husserl, Maurice Merleau-Ponty ami Gcorge Herbert Mead, among
others, seeks to explain the mundane way in which social agents cOl1slitule
social reality through language. gesture, and all manner of symbolic social
signo Th ough phenornenology sometimes appears to assumc the existence 01'
a choosing ami constituting agcnt pri or to lang uage (who poses as the sole
sourcc of its constituting acts), thcre is also a more radical use of the doctrine
01' constituti o n that takes the social agent as an ohjecl rather than the subject
ofconstitutive acts.
When Simone de Beauvoir claims, ' onc is not born, but, rather, h ecol11es a
woman,' she is appro priating ami reintcrpreting this doctrine 01' con stituting
acts from the ph enomenological tradition . ' In this sen se, gender is in no way
a stable identity or locus o f agency from which various acts proceede; rather,
it is an identity tenuously constituted in time- an identity instituted rhrough
él .\'Iylized repe/ilion o/act.\". F urt her. gender is instituted through the stylization
01' tbe body ami, hence , must be unuerstood as the mund ane way i.n which
h(ldil y gest l1 re~_ 1110vcments, antl t::nacl nH:nts 01' various kin ds con stitute the

IJ(1 1)/
 111 H N , I I " ,\ N '-' IIII ¡ ~ 1' 1 I l' lb IU I'I ~ 1\1 \ 11 \ I
ill usioll 01' UIl a"id in~ gUlld c l ed ~dl. I III S 111'111 111.1111111 I1l\JVt:S 11](.: COI1Ct:p­
ti on 01" gCl1ucr llll lIJe grolllld 01' a su hstall tiulnlC uh'l l,r idcnlily to one that
I'cq uires a cOllception 01' a conslÍ tutcd socia! (¡',,/pom/ill'. Significantly, ir
ge nder is ins tituleu through acts wh ich are internally J i::;colltinuoLJs, then the
appearance o/subslallce is precisely that, a co nslrucleJ identity, a performa t­
¡ve accomplish men t which the lIl unda ne soci a l audience, inc\ud ing the actors
themsc\ves, come to believe and to perform in the m ode of bel ief. If the
ground of gender identity is the stylized repetition of acts through time, anu
not a sccmingly seamless identity, then the possibilities of gender transforma­
tion a re to be found in the arbitrary rc1ation between such acts, in the
possi bility of a di fferent SOft 01" re peating, in the brea king or sub versive
repetitío n 01" t hat style.
T hro ugh the conception of gender acts sketched aboye, I will try t o show
som e ways in which reífied amI na turaJized conceptions of gender might be
undcrstood as constit uted and, hence, capable o f being constituted difIer­
ently. In opposition to theatrical or phenomenological models which take the
gendered self to be prior to its acts, I will understand constituting acts not
only as constituting tbe identity of the actor, but as constituting that idenlity
as a compelJing illusion, an o bject of he!ief In the course of making my
argument, I will draw from theatrical, anthropological, and philosophical
discourses, but mainly phenomenology, to show that what is called gender
identity is a performative accomplishment compelled by social sanction ami
taboo. In its very character as perl"orlllative resides the possibilit y 01' contest­
ing its reífied status.
J. Sex/gender: feminist and phenomenological views
Feminist theory has often been critical of natura lis tic explanations of sex
and sexual.ity that assume that the meaning of women 's social existenoc can
be derived from some fact 01" their physiology. In distinguishing sex I"rom
gender, feminist theorists have disputed causal explanations that assume that
sex dictates or necessitates certain social meani.ngs for women 's experience.
Phenomenological theories of human embodiment have also been con cerned
to distinguish between the various physiological and biological causalities
that structure bodily existenee and the meanings that embodied existence
assullles in the context 01' lived experience. ln Merleau-Ponty's reftections in
The Phel1omello!ogy 01 Percepliol1 on 'the body in its sexual being,' he takes
issue with such aecounts of bodily cxperience and claims that the body is 'an
historieal idea' rather than 'a natural speeies.'" Significantly, it is this claim
that Simone de Beauvoir cites in The S econd Sex when she seIs the stage for
her c1aim that 'woman: and by extension, a ny gcndcr, is an histo rical situ­
a lion ralher than a natural facL'
In both contexts , the exislenec amI 1~lcticity 01' I he material or natu ral
o imcnsio ns of th e body a re no t dcni l.!d, h ut reco lili·iwd as d istinct from the
1)1-1
1\ \ r-s /\ Nfl r. r:-Nnr..- n l'iTSrITI'. I I 111 N
JlIOCC:'S hy whkh Iln' hvdy conlf':s I() h c a l culllllalllll:allill gs. hlr bolh Beauvoir
atlo I'v.1 c r!l;au- Pollly, the body is lInderslllod t ~) he <In acti ve process 01" em­
hodyi ng certail1 cu.ltural and hislorical possibilities, a complicated process 01'
appropriation which any phenomenological thcory 01" embodimcnt needs to
describe. In order to describe lhe gendcred body, a phcnomenological theory
01' cons titution requircs an expansion of the conventional view of acts to
mean both that which constitutes meanÍllg and that through which meaning
is performed or enacted. In other wo rds, the acts by which gender is consti­
tuted bear similarities to performalive acts within theatrical contexts. M y
task, then, is to examine in what ways gender is constructed through specific
corporeal acls, and \Vhat possibilities exist ror the cultural transformation 01"
gender througb such acts .
Merleau-Ponty maintains not onl y that the body is an hístorical idea but
a set 01' possibilities to be continually reaJized. In c\aiming that tbe body is
an historical idea, Merlcau-Ponty means that it gains its mea ning through a
concrete and historically lllediated expression in the world. That the body is a
set 01' possibilities signifies (a) that its appearance in the world , ror percep­
tion, is not predetermined by some manner ofinterior essenee, and (b) that its
concrete expression in the world must be understood as the taking up and
rendering specific of a set of historical possibilities. Henee, there is an agency
which is understood as the proeess 01' rendcring sueh possibilitics deter­
minate. These possibilities are neeessarily constrained by available historical
eonventions. Thc body is not él se.lf-identical or merely facti e materi al i ty~ it is
a materiality that bears meaning, ir nothing else, and the manner 01' this
bearing is I"undalllcntally dramatic. By dramatic I mean only that the bod y is
not merely matter but a continual and incessant /1/a(erializing of possibilities.
One is not simply a body , but, in some very key sen se, one does one's body
and, indecd , one docs one's bod)' differcntly from one 's contemporaries and
I"rom onc's embodied predecessors and succcssors as \Vcl\.
It is, however, clcarly unfortunate grammar to c\aim that there is a 'we'
or an '1' that does its body, as if a disembodied ageney preceded and directed
an embodied exterior. More appropriate, I suggcst, would be a vocabulary
that resists the substance Illetaphysics of subject-verb formations and rc\ies
instead on an ontology of present participles. The '1' that is its body is, of
necessity , a mode of elllbouying, and the 'whaC that it cmbouies is possib­
ilities. But here again the grammar 01" the formulation misleads , I"or the
possibilities that are elllbodied are not fundamentally exterior or antecedent
to the process of embodying itself. As an intentionally organized materiality,
the body is always an embodying o/ possibilities both conditioned and eir­
cumscribed by historical convention. In other words, the body i.l' a historical
situation , as Bcauvoir has c1aillled, and is a Illanner 01" doing, dramatizing,
ano reproducing a historieal siluation .
To do. lo dramati ze, to reproduce, these seelll to be some ofthe elementary
structures ofem omlimcnt. This doi ng of gemler i ~ nol merely a way in which
¡)I)
 I ~ t ,,¡ '-_' . l . l'
clll booieo agents are exterior, surracco. o pen to lhe pcn.:cptioll 01 o tlle r:; .
Ernbooiment clearly ma nirests a set 01' strategie::; o r \Vhat Sa rtre would pcr­
haps have calleo a style 01' being or Foucault, 'a stylistics 01' existence: This
style is never fully self-styled , for living styles have a history, and that histo ry
conditions and limits possibilities. Consider gender, fOl" instance, as a ('or­
porea/ sly/e, an 'act,' as it were. whieh is both intentional and performati ve,
where 'performati ve' itself carri es the double-mean ing of 'dram atic' and
'non-refcrential. '
Whcn Beau voir claims that '\Voman' is él historical id ea and not a natural
t~lct, she clearly underscores the distinction hetween sex, as biological facticity,
a nd gendcr, as the cultura l interpretation or signification of that fac tieity.
To be femalc is, according to that distinction . a facticity which has no mean­
ing, bllt to be a woman is to have hecorne a woman , to compel the body to
conform to an historical idea of 'woman: to induce the bodv to become a
cultural sign , to materialize oneself in obedience to an histori~ally delim ited
possibility, and to do this as a sustained and repeated corporeal project. The
notion 01' a 'projcct', ho\Vever, suggests the originating force of a radical wiU,
and because gender is a project which has cultural survival as its end , the term
'slralegy' hetter suggests the situation of duress under which gender per­
fonnanee always and variously OCcurs. !-lence, as a strategy 01' survival , gender
is a performance with clearly punitive consequences. Discretc genders are
part of what 'humanizes' indi viduals within contemp orary culture; indeed,
those who t~lÍl to do their gender right are regularly punisheJ. Because there
is neitber a n 'essence ' that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objecti ve
ideal to whiüh gender aspires; beca use gender is not a fact, the various acts
of gender crcates lhe idea of gender, and without those acts, there would he
no gender at all . Gender is, lhus, a construction that regulady conceals its
gellcsis. T he lacil collective agreement to perform , produce, and sustain
discrete alld polar genders as culturalfictions is obscured by the credibiliLy
of its ll wn prodm:tion . The authors of gender become entranced by their OWTl
lictions wlllTehy the construction compels one 's belief in its necessity and
naturalness. Thc historical possibilities materializeJ through various COf ­
poreal styles are llothing other than those punitively regulated cultural ncti ol1S
Ihat are alternately embodied and disguised under duress.
t low useful is a phenomenological point of departure for a feminist de­
.'\cription of gemid! On the surface it appears that phenomenology shares
wirll feminist analysis a eom mitment to grounding theory in lived experience.
and in revealing the way in which the world is produced through the con­
stituting aets 01' suhjective expcrienee. Clearly, not all feminist theory would
privilcgc the r oint 01' view of the subject, (K risteva once objected to femin is t
thcory as ' too exi stenl ialis l't a nd yet the fem inist c1ai m th a t the per.sonal is
political sLlggesls, in pa rt. th a! subjeClivc cxperieTIl~e is l1 (l t \lOly strucllLred by
\:xisting IXll it il.:u I urra ngcIllCn L'l. b UL c lTc\.:ts unJ li lrllC lurcs Ihose a rrangeme nts
in IU lrJ. l'"cl11i ni); ( Ihcory ha ... sOllgh l tu llnderst;¡nd IIw W/IV in whid l systcm i~
lOO
I , ~ I\ I' t. I I \, I"""' - " I t" i\ ! 1 - .. .., I"\- r " l l ' "- 1'"t r"I-:" ., I... n_', ,--,¡-, ·r "' , ~, · ' · I · ' :! · I · I~'I "
política! :wd l"lll turu I strtldul\:s ;¡r ~ cnaded and repl"()u uccd
('1 p \!rV Il S1VC
tlllllUg lt individllal ads a nd pral"lic ~s , IInu huw lhe analysis of ostensibly
personal sitllati~)lls is c1arilkd through situaling the isslIes in a broader and
sharcd cultural conlexl. Indecd, the feminist impulse , ano I am sure there is
lI10re lhan onc, has orten emergeo in thc recognition that my pain or m y
siklll:C or 111y anger or my pereeption isnnal1y not mine alone , and that it
dl'lilllits me in a shared cultural situation wh ich in turn enables and empowers
Ille in eertain unanticipateo ways. The personal is thus im plicitly political
inasmuch as it is conditioned by sbared social structures, hut the personal has
alsl) been immunized against political challenge to the extent that public/
private distinctions endure. For feminist theory, then, the personal becomes
an cxpansive category, one which accommodates, if on ly impbcitly, politieal
structures usually viewed as public. Indeed , the very meaning ofth e political
cxpands as we\1. At its best, feminist theory in vol ves a dialcctical expansion
01' both of these categories. My situation does not cease to be mine just
hccause it is the situation of someone cIsc, and my acls. individual as they
are, nevertheless reproduce the situation of my gender, and do that in various
ways. In other words, there is, latent in the personal is politieal formulation
()f feminist theory , a supposition that the life-world ol' gender [elatíons is
constituted, at Ieast partially, through the concrete and historically mediateo
acts ofindividuals. Considering that ' the' body is invariably transformed in lo
his body or her body, the body is only knovvn through its gendered appear­
ance. It would seem imperative to consider the way in which this gendering 01'
the body occurs. My suggestion is that the body beco mes its gender through
a series ol' acts \vhich are renewed , revised, and eonsolioated through time.
hom a feminist point ofview, one might try to reconceive the gendered booy
as the legacy of sedimented acts rather than a predetermined or foreelosed
structure, cssence or faet , whether natural , cultural, or bnguistic.
The feminist appropriation 01' the phenomenological theory of constitu­
tion might employ the notion of an ([el in a richly ambiguoLls sense. 11' the
personal is a category which expands to inelude the wider political and social
slructures, then the oc/s 01' the genoered subjeet would be similarly expansi ve.
('learly. there are political aets which are deliberate and instrumental actions
of political organizing, resistance coJlective intervention with the broad aim
uf' instating a more just set of social and poli tjcal rclations. There are thus
acts which are Jone in the name ol' women, and then there are acts in and 01'
lhemselves, apart from any instrumental consequence, that challenge the
l·alegory of women itself. Indeed, one ought to consider the futility of a
political program which seeks radical1y to transform the social situation of
women without first determining whether the category ol' woman is socially
l'ollstmcted in such a \Va y lhat to he a woman is, by definition , to be in an
opprcssed situation. In a n unucrs tandable desire to forge bond s of solidarity,
klllillist discollrse has orten rclicd lIP()11 lhe category ofwom an as a universal
prc:lupposition 0 1' cult ura l CXpCI il.!lIu-' wlridl. in its ll niversal status. provides a
11 11

Inhl' ,,"I l) l tlg l~ 1I 1 pIO"IISC lit ~VC III" íl l !'llhlll.::d sulid:II ¡Iy 111 ;1 , ,,111 m: ill whiell
¡lIl' lirh..' II l1 ivcn¡a l (Ir '111:1 11 Ir as lur IIIl' IlIosl pal I 1)l'.:11 plC1Hlpposed as
.' 1I¡,''< I\!ns lVC \\I ll h hlllllal11lCSS itscl f. rC1I1illist thco ry has sOllg ht with success lO
hring Il:ma k s pecilleity into visibility and to rewrite the history of culture in
Il'lIl1S whidl adnowk:dge the presen~e, the innuence , and the oppression 01'
WOI\II,:Il . Ye \. in this I!ffort to combat the invisibility of women as a catcgory
ICl11 illists mn Ihe risk 01' rendering visible a category whieh may 0 1' may not
hl' re prcsc ll tative 01' the concrete lives of women. As fe minists, we have bccn
h:..;s cagcr , I think. to consider Ihe status of the category itself and , indeeJ ,
111 discl~rn the conditions of oppression wh ieh isslIe from an unexamined
Il'pl odlll't ion 01' gendc r identities whieh sustain discretc and binary categories
'1"1 11:111 and woman ,
Wll ell BC(l llvoir c1aims that woman is an ' historical sitllation.' she emph as­
I /C'i Ihal the body sllffers a certain cultural construction, not only thro ugh
l\lllv~ nti()lls that sanction and proscribe how one acts one's body, the ' acC
111 pc d'ormance that one' s body is. but a lso in thc tacil conventions th a t
';11 lIl'I Lln.: the way the body is clllturally perceived . Indeed , if gender is the
L'lllllII'a l signilkance that the sexed body assumes, and if that sigoificam:e is
'f)d~'h.: nnin ed tll rough various acts and their cultural perception , then it
\VIlIrld appear that from within the terms of culture it is not possible to know
~I" ;IS distinct from gender. The rcproduction of the catcgory 01' gender is
1.'lIad ed on a large political scaJe, as when women first entcr a profession or
/-'.lI ill certain rights, 01' are reconceived in legal or politica l discourse in signific­
tl lllly I1CW \.vays. But the more mundane reproduction of gendered identity
lakes pl: tee th rough the various ways in which bodies are acted in re1ationship
In Ihl.: J ec ply cnlrcnched or sedimented expectations of gendered existence.
( 'llllsidér thal Ihere is a sedimentation of gender norms that produces the
pl:C:lIl iar phcnomcnon of a natural sex, or a real woman. or any number of
11Icva knt and compelling social fictions, and that this is a sedimentation that
IIVl')' lillle has produced a set ofcorporcal styles which. in reified form , appear
;IS lile natural configuration 01' bodies into sexes which exist in a binary
lehl llOll to one another.
n. Binary gcndcrs and the heterosexual contract
ro guarantee the reproduction of a given culture, various requirements,
well-established in the anthropological literature of kinship. have instated
sl.:x llal reproduction within the confines of a heterosexually-based system of
Ill<lrriage which n:quires the rcproduction ofhuman beings in certélin gendered
lIIol.ks whil'h. in dTcct, guarantee the eventual rcprodudion of tha t kinship
sys tcm . I\s Fll llcaull allu o thcrs llave poi nled n ul , Ihe assO~i41 li n ll n r ~I natural
sex wilh a disrn: I¡: g¡:ndc l and Wilh an llslenltih ly n;r tlll, d ' , llIra~' Iillll ' ll) Ihe
llppllsing sc¡.;/~'ent l cr ili :t 11 tlll l1a l ural ~(llli l llll' IIf)1 1 ul lI J1 ll1f;r! nlll'illllcts in
Ilu: 'ierV II.'\: \) 1 1~' lllddt l ~' I IVC ill ll.:lcsts,' It'llI lIll"l 11111 11 1111 .llIllI lIlI pn l\l1-'V "ud
lO
l' ,. It J I I 11 ,\ \ .\ 1 \ V 1 ,\ ( . I S ,\ N 1 r-Il N~"I' I 'J" 1I1 1\''''
killship sllldics "'I ve showlI hllW cllltu r\:s are govl.:f1ll.:d by cOllvcntiolls that
1101 only regulalc and guuranlee Ih e production, exchange, and eo nsump­
lion oJ' material goods, hut also reproduce the bonds of kinship itself,
which require taboos él.nd a punitive regulation of reproduction to etTect that
end. Levi-Strauss has shown how the incest taboo works to guarantee the
6
channcling of sexuality into various modes of heterosexua l marriage. Gayle
Rubin has argued convincingly that the incest taboo produces certai n ki nds
01' discrete gendered identities and sexualities. 7 My point is simply that one
way in which this syslcm of complllsory heterosexuality is reprodllced and
concealed is Ihrough the cultivation of bodies into discrete sexes with
' natural' appearances ami ' natural' heterosexual disposition s. Although the
enthnocentric conceit suggests a progressi o n beyond the mandatory struc­
tures ofkinship relations as describcd by Levi-Strauss, I would slIggest, alollg
with Rubin , that contemporary gender identities are so many marks or
' traces' o f residual kinship . The contention that sex, gender, and hetero­
sexuality are historical products which have become conjoined and reified as
natural over time has received a good deal of critical attentioll not only from
Michel Fo uca ult, but Monique W ittig, gay historians, and various cultura l
R
anthropologists and social psychologists in recent years. Thcse theories ,
however , still lack the critical resources fo r thinking radically about the
historical sedimentation of sexuality and sex-related constructs if they do not
delimit and describe the mundane manner in which these constructs are
produced, reproduced, and maintained withi n the field 01' bodies.
Can phcnomenology assist a feminist reconstruction of the sedimented
character 01' sex, gender, and sexuality at the level 01' the body? In the tirst
place, the phenomenological focus on the various acts by which cultural
identity is constituted and assumed provides a felicitous starting point for Ihe
feminist effort to understand the mundane manner in which bodies get crafted
into genders. The formulation of the body as a mode of dramatizing or
enacting possibilities offers a way to lInderstand how a cultural convention is
embodied and enacted. But it seems difficult, if not impossible , to imagine a
way to conceptualize the scale and systemic character ofwomen 's oppression
from a theorctical position which takes constituting acts to be its point of
departure. Although individual acts do work to maintain and reproduce
systcms 01' oppression. and, indeed. any theory of personal polítical respons­
ibility presupposes such a view. it doesn 't follo\\' that oppression is asole
conscq ucnce of such actS. One might argue that without human beings whose
various acts , largcly construcd, produce and maintain oppressive conditions,
those conditions would fall away, but note that the relation between acts and
conditions is ncither unilateral nor unmediated. There are social contexts and
conventions with in which certain aets not only become possible but beco me
conceivable as acts at alJ. The tranSl'Onlla tion o l' social relations beco mes a
ma uer, Ihen, 01' Intnsfo nning hegcm o nic social conditions rathcr than the
ind ividual ilCls tllat are spawned by Ih o~c conditions. In deed. one runs the
I () \
 In FNTl TY t\ N 1111. SEl lo'
risk of addressing the mercly indi recto if not epiphcn o mcnal. rdlcctioll of
tho se conditions if one remain s restricted to a politics of acts.
But the theat ricaJ sense 01' an 'act' forces a revision 01' th e indiv id ua lisl
assumptions underlying the more restricted view 01' eons lituting aets within
phenomenological discourse. As a given tempora l duration within the
entire performance, 'acts' are a sh a red experience and 'co11ective aetion .' J USl
as within feminist theory lhe very eategory of the pe rsonal is expanded t
include political structures, so is there a theatrica11 y-based a nd, indeed, Icss
individua11y-oriented view 01' acts that goes some of the way in defusing the
c ri ticism 01' act theory as ' too existentialist. ' The act that gender is, the act
thal embodicd agents are inasmuch as they dramatkal ly a nd active1y embody
and oindeed, weaf eertain cultural signifiea tions, is clearly not one's act alone.
SlI re\ y, there arc nuanced and individual ways of doing one's gendcr. but
Ihal one does it , and that one d oes it in ac:cord with certain sanctions
and proscriptions, is clearly not a full y indi vidual matter. Here again, I don 't
mean to minimize the clTect 01' certain gender norms whieh originate within
the family and are e.lforced through certain familial modes of punishment
and reward and which, as a consequence, might be eonstrued as highly
individual , ror cven there famil y relations recapitula te, indi vidualize, and spe­
cify pre-existing cultural relations; they are rarely, if ever, radiea11y original.
Thc act that one does, the act that one performs, is, in a sense, an act that
has been going on before one arrived 00 the scene. Hence, gender is an act
which has been rehearsed , much as a script survives the particular actors who
make use of it, but which requires individual actors in order to he actualized
and reprodueed as reality once again. The complex components that go into
an act must be di stin guished in order to understand the kind of acting in
concert aod acting in accord wbkh acting one's gender invariably is.
In what sen ses, then, is gender an act? As anthropologist Victor Turner
suggests in hi s studies ofritual social drama , social action requires a perform­
ance which is repealed. This repetition is at once a reenaetment and reexperi­
encing of a set of mcanings already socially established: it is the mundane
and ritualized form 01' their legitimation Y W hen this conception 01' social
performance is applied to gender, it is clear that a1though there are individual
bodies that enact these significat ions by beeoming styli zed in to gendered
modes, this 'action' is immediately public as well. TIlcrc: IIre tem po ral and
colleetive dimen sions to these actions, am.lt nd r Pllhli¡ ' lI allll(' is 1101 incon­
sequential; indeed, the performan ce is elTcctcd wil ll lll \.' ~ ll illcg ic aim of
maintaining gender wilhin its binary fr:llnc. I I'Hk" ,ldp(l 111 I'l'da!!\)!' iGII terrns,
the performance renders socia l Illws c\plkll
As a public actiOI1 and rc rJ'mlll, IIi w , 11 ' ".\ l lIh I 1 11 ' 11 , 1 ",d,,·;" choice 01'
projecl lhat rcllccls iI mc tl'\ y illd ivldl lil l lll.u< 1 '''01 ," "'hl h 11 illl r()~ed or
inst ri bed UpO I1 Ilu: in d ividua l 11, ,IIl1ll 1'11 I 11 11111" "' 1'" , d. \11.llI '11\.'l1 ls llfthe
subjcct wou ld l'lll1 lc:nd . 1 In' bml, I ~ IIl1tlloi lú}I), IIt'l i jlH; d \, íi l¡ 1'lIlIllIal codes,
as ir il \Vele a ,,,l'I,.. .;
11'1 1( 111 111 ,,1 ,<lló·.I'\, li,\' Ijl\'( il ¡.' "ll l;í ;" Il'\ aliolls. Hu i
I ji:1
l' Iq(J "H 1\1 ¡\ I I ,¡ "1
I I S "N n n 'N:'irlTt l - ' !l / N
1I,'illter do clllhl1lhcd :-;c:\ws pn:-cxlst lite clllturall'unVCllliollS wltieh esscll­
lially sigllify blldics. AClors are a lways al ready 0 11 lhe stage, within the terms
1'1' 1he performance. J lIst as a script lIlay be enac\ed in various ways, and just
as Ihe play requircs both text and interprelation , so the gendered body acts
ils part in a culturally restricted corporeal space and enacts interpretations
wilhin the confines of already existi ng directivcs.
Although the links be tween a theatrical and a socia l role are complex ami
Ihe distinctions not easil y drawn (Bruce Wilshire po ints out the limits of
Ihe comparison in Ro/e- P/aying a/1(( lde/1.l ily: The Limits oI Thealre as
A.J('wphor lO ) , it seems clear that, although theatrical perfo rmances can meet
with political censorship and scathing criticism , gende r performances in
lIon-theatrical contexts are governed by more clea rly punüive and regulatory
social con\'entions. Indeed , the sight of a transvestite onstage can compel
plcasure and applause while the sight ofthe same transvestite on the seat next
to LIS on the bus can eompel fear, rage. even violence. The convenlions which
lIlediate proximity and identification in these two instanees a re clearly quite
L1itTerent. J want to make t\Yo different kinds 01' claims regarding this tenta l­
ive distinction. In the thea tre, one can say, 't his is just an act,' and de-rea lize
the aet, make acting into something quite distinct from what is real. Beeause
of this distinction , one can maintain one's sense of reality in the face of this
tcmporary challenge to our existing ontological assumptions about gender
arrangements; the various conventions which announee that 'this is only a
play' allows strict lines to be drawn betwcen the performance and lite . On the
street or in the bus, the act becomes dangerous, if it does, precisely beca use
there are no theatrical conventions to dclimit the PlIrely imaginary character
of the act. indeed , on the street o r in the bus, there is no presumplion lhat the
act is distinet from a reality; the disquieting effect 01' the act is that there a re
no conventions that facilitate making this separation. C1earl y_ there is thea tre
which attempts to contest or, indeed, break down those conventions lhat
demarcate the imaginary from the real (Richard Schechner brings thi s out
quite clearly in J3elll'een Thealre a/1(/ Anthfop%gy"). Yet in those cases one
conrronts the same phcnomenon , namely, that the act is not contrastcd with
the real , but CO/1.slitut es a reality that is in some sense new, a modality 01'
gender that cannot readily be assimilated into the pre-existing categories thal
rcgulate gender reality. From the point 01' view 01' those establishcd categor­
ies , one may want to clailll, but oh , this is real/ya girl or a woman , or this is
/'(:,ally a hoy 01' aman, and fllrther that the appearance contradicts the fealil y
oC the gender, that the diserete ami familiar reality must he there, nascent,
tClllporarily unrealized , pcrhaps realized at other times 01' other places. The
tnlllsvestite , however, can do more than simply express the distinction be­
lwccn sex alld gender. but challenges, at \cast implicitly, the distinction
hcl wee n ap peara nce a nd rea lity that st ruc tures a good deal 01' popular thin k­
ing " bout gcndcr identil Y. Ir thc ' realily ' 01' gender is constituted by the
pcr rormtl l1cc ilsdl'. Ihcn there is nO rc¡;oursc lo <In esscntial and unreaLized
10'"
 Inl N 1' 1 I'r .\NI! 1'111 SI l !,1
' sex' or 'gender' which gt:núli l pcrfO IIl IlI IIt ' • IHlc llsihl y 1' 1'1\;:-':-'. III\.keJ , 111\:
transvestite's gender is as fully real as ;11 1\ III1l whosc pl.'IIIlIIlllIllCC compl ies
with social expectations.
Gender rca lity is performative which III C:JIIS q uile simply , that it is real
only to thc extent that it is performeJ. It secllls I¡.ir to sa y thal ccrtain kinos
of acts are usuall y interpreted as expressive 01' a genoer wre or identi ty, a nd
that these ads either conform to an ex pected gender iden tity or contest lhal
expectation in sorne way. That expectation. in turn , is baseJ upo n the pcrcep­
tion 01' sex , where sex is understood to be the diserete and factic datum 01'
p ri ma ry sexual characteristics. This impLicit and popular theory of acts and
gcstures as expressive 01' gender suggests th a t gende r ilself is something Plior
to lhe vario us acts, postures, and gestures by which it is dramati7ed and
known ; indeed. gender appears to the popular imagination as a substantial
core which might well be understood as the spiritual or psychological cor­
relate of hiological sex. 12 I f gcnder attributes, however, are not expressiv
but performative, then these attributes ctTectively wnstitute the identi ty
lhey are said to express or reveal. The distinetion between expression and
performativeness is quite crucial , ror ifgendcr attrihutes and acts, the varioLls
ways in which a body shows or produces its cultural si gnification, are per~
formative , lhen there is no preexisting identity by which an act or attribute
might be mcasured; there would be no true or false , real or distorted acts 01'
gender, and the postu lation of a true gender identity would be revealed as a
regul alory ficlion. Th at gender reality is created through sustained social
performances means that the very notions 01' an essential sex , a true or
abiding masculinity or femininity , are also constituted as part ofthe strategy
by w hich the p~rrormalivc aspect 01' gender is concealed .
As a con scq ucn ce. gender cannot be understood as a role which either
exprcsscs 01' d isgu iscs an interior ' self,' whether that 'self ' is conceivcd as
sexcd nr no \. A..:. performance which is performative, gender is an ' act,'
broad ly (,;OIlSt rul.:t.! , which constructs the social fiction 01' its own psychological
in l\! 1il l! ily, I\s \) ppllscd to a view such as Erving Goffman's which posits a
sd r whil'll as:.;¡¡rncs and exchanges various 'roles' \Vithin the complex social
C~pCl. I :I l ii¡I1S n I' I he 'ga me' of modern li fe,' \ I <1m suggestin g that this self is
11\1 1 \1Il 1y ill l.:lrievahly 'ou tside,' constituted in social discourse, but that the
U'<l'll l' llu!l 01' inleriority is itself él puh1ica l1 y rel:!ulated and sanctioned form
1>1 I'S'il'l ll'C ¡¡Ihricatioll. Genders, th en. can h\.' Ill'ilher true nor false , neither
ICil l 111>1 apparent. I\nd yet, one is cOl llpd l ~'tI (¡l live in a world in which
1.'\'lIdl'" cl lllslilulC' univocal signific r:-.. ill \\ 111111 1'~' l\der is stabi1ized, polarized,
1¡'I Hk ll:d discrcte and inl r<lctab1e. 111 dil'l f , !'l' lI dl'l' is l1lade lo comply with a
Ilh'III.'1 \Ir Irlllh ano f~¡] sit y \\h ich 111 11 ' \I d ~ 11I1I1I ••u il'l s íls o wn pcrformative
lll lldll v blll Sl'l'VCS a :il\cial po1il'y 111 l'l'lltk l 1l'l'lI l. lli o ll :llld co nlro1. Perform­
11It' PII~'\¡ )J,cndel \\mlll' initia l¡'" iI il.1 .. 1 1'1I 111 \ It Il ll llh bolh o hvio us and
IlI dl ll'l! 1I1ld pcrlÚlllll11!' 11 wdl plll\ull' ~ tlll' 1~'a'''I I I'' IIL:e thal I her c is an
1'''~¡'lltli ''I ~l lI (\1 1'¡'lIdll U!('lIl l l y ,11 1,' , ,di 11 1111 I III ~ Il h'llllallcc is so "::lsily
111r,
l.tHI ' '' I~~L\ r1 '' 1 ¡\, ' I'S i\NIJ (oI'Nl lI · ¡¿ "t) N'nII'1J IIO N
t.lispla~ct1 by all xicly, Ihal cullurl: so rl:adily pllnishes or margin a lizcs those
who j~¡jl to perl'orm the illusion 01' gcnder cssentialism should be sign enough
that on some level there is social know ledge tbat the truth or falsity 01' gender
14
is onl y socially compelled and in no sense o ntologieall y nccessitated.
In. Feminist theory: beyond aD expressive model of gender
This view 01' geoder does not pose as a comprehensi ve theory about what
gender is or the manner of its construetion , and neither does it prescribe an
explicit feminist political program oIndeed, 1 can imagi ne this view of gender
being used for a number 01' discrepant politica! strategies. Some of my frie nd s
may fault me for this and insist that any theory of gendcr constitution has
political presuppositions and implications, and that it is impossible to sep­
arate a theory 01' gender from a political philosophy of feminismo ln fact,
I would agree, and argue that it is primarily politieal interests which create
the social phenomena of gender itself, and that without a radical critiq ue of
gender constitution feminist theory fail::; to takc stock of the way in whieh
oppression structures the ontologiea! categories through whieh gender is
conceived. Gayatri Spivak has argued that fem inists need to re!y on an
operational essentialism, a false ontology 01' women as a universal io order to
advance a feminist po1itical program. 15 She kno\Vs that the category of 'women'
is not flll1y expressive, that the multiplicity and discontinuity 01' the referent
mocks and rebels against the univocity of the sign , but suggests it could be
used for strategic purposes. Kristeva suggcsts something similar. 1 thi nk.
when she prescribes that feminists use the category 01' women as a politica !
tool without attributing ontological integrit y to the term , and adds that,
strictly speaking, women cannot be said lo exist.' r. feminists might well \Vorry
about the political implications 01' c1aiming that women do not exist , especi­
ally in li ght of the persuasive arguments advanced by Mary Anne Warrcn in
her book, Gendcrcide. 17 She argues that social policies regarding population
control and reproductive technology are dcsigned to limit and, at times,
eradicate the cx istence of women altogcther. In light 01' such a c1aim , what
good does it do to quarre! about the metaphysical status of the lerm , and
pcrhaps, for c1ear1y political reasons, feminists ought to silence the q uarre!
altogether.
But it is onc thing to use the tcrm and know its ontological insufficiency
and quite another to articulate a normative vision for feminist theor y which
celebrates or emancipates an essence, a naturc, or a shared cultural reality
which cannot be found . The option I am defending is not to redescrihe the
world from the point of view of women . 1 don 't know what that point 01' view
is, hut wheltcvcr it is, it is not singular, and not mine to espoLlse . lt would only
be half-ri ghllo elaim that I am interested in how the phenomenon ofa men's
or WOl11cn 's po int 01' view gel s constitutcd , ro r wh ile I do think that those
poillls nI' views are, indced , S()L:Ia 11 Yco n,,1 ituteó , and tha! a rcllexi ve gencalogy
lO '!

1ll ' r. I 1 I \' ,\ N 1I 1 i ji i S i1l, 1
01' thosc POillh 1)1 \1 \'1\1 11'1 ¡II ll'illl ollll II! d ll I1 j.., 1101 prilllarily lhe gendcr
cpislernc lhal I iHll jl ll \' I,'~ I C d 111 '::-')111 ' ,1 11 1' dl'I,:llI lhl llll'tin¡'" or rcconstrucling,
Indced, it is lhe 1 ) IC~ lIproSil ll)flI \l lh t: ~; II~L~"I Y u l'wllll1an itsclfthat rcquircs
a crilical gcncalogy nI' Ihe ~¡) rn r l c)\ illslillJlilllWI and discursivc mcans b
which it is cOl1slilulcd, J\ Hl1ollgJl sorne fcll1inist literary critics suggesl lhat
th ~ prcsupposition 01' sex ual JilTerence is neccssary for all di scourse, that
pl)s ition reifies sexual JilTcrcnce as Ihe foun d ing moment of cul t ure and prc­
'1lI dus an analysis not only 01' how sexual difference is constitu ted to begin
\Vil h hut how it is continuollsl y consti luted, botb by tbe masculine traditi on
II Ial pn:empts the universal point 01' view, a nd by UlOse fe minist posit ions
I hjl l construcl the univocal category 01' 'women' in the name 0 1' expressing or,
il ll.h.:cd, liberating a subjccteJ c1ass. As F oucault claimed about th ose human­
I~;I dforts to liberate thc crirninalized subject, the subject that is freed is even
IIl1l1'lJ deeply shacklcd Ihan originall y thought. ' 8
( 'Iearly, though, l cnvision the critical genealogy 01' gender to rely on a
pl ll.:llomenological sel 01' presuppositions. most important among them the
\:x panded conception of an 'acC which is both socially shared and historically
,'11IIstiluted, and which is performative in the sense l previously described.
Bul a critical genealogy l1ecds lo be supplcmented by a politics 01' perform­
alive gender acts, 011C which bOlh redcscribes existing gender identities
amI affers a prescriptivc vie\\' about the kind 01' gender reality there ought to
be. The redescriptioJ1 necds lo ex pose the reifications that tacitly serve as
substantial gender cores or iJentilies, and to elueidate both the aet and the
slrategy of disavowal which al once constitute and conceal gender as we I¡ve
il. The prescription is invaria bly more difficult, if only beca use we need ro
think a world in which acts, gestures, the visual body. the clothed body, the
various physieal attribules usually associated with gender, express Ilolhing,
In a sen se, the prescription is not utopian , but consists in an imperative
\11 acknowledge the existing complexity of gender whieh our vocabulary
invariably disguises and to bring that complexity into a dramatic cultural
intcrplay without punitive consequences.
Certainly, it remains politically important to represent women, but to do
I hal in a way that does nol distort and reify the very eollectivity the theory is
supposcd to emancipate. f7cminist theory whieh presupposes sexual differ­
el1ce as the necessary and invariant theoretieal point 01' departure c1early
il1lproves upon those humanist discourses which conflate the universal with
the masculine and appropriate all 01' culture as masculine propcrly. C\early,
it is necessary to reread the lexts of western philosophy rrom the various
roinls 01' view that have been excluded, not only to reveal the particular
pers pective and set 01' inlorests informing lh ose ostellsibly lrampareJ1t de­
s¡;ripli o Jl s 01' lhe rca l bul to olfer alternati vc ucscriptions a nd prcscliptio ns;
iJluccJ. lo I!stahl isl l pl1 il osnphy " ... u cultu ra 1prm:1ice, ami 1P clÍ l iei/e its tenels
1'1 1)11 1 mnr¡.!i nali /.cu cul1u ral h)catiol1<:, I h ~I V,' 1111 ~Jl llllrd wilh Ihis pn.> ccdu rc,
all J huye ch';¡r1 v hl.' l1, ' IiI ~tI !'mJ1l 111\):)1.: arl a l y~~'·. My " Idy \:\l IlCCrn is lhal
IW:
I
P HIU 1111 1'11 , 1 1 \' 1 ¡\ ( ' 1 S ¡\ N 1) (i F N 111 , I{ I () NSil 1 I ¡ 1 1() N
sex ual di 1fl·...CIICl' 11Ilt bccnll1c a rdlicatiol1 whidl uJ1wiltingly preserves a
hinary rcstriLlillll on gender identity and <1n implicitly heterosexual frame­
work ror the description of gender, gender identity, and sexuality. There ¡s, in
my vie\\', 110thing about femaleness that is waiting lo be exprcssed ; there ¡s.
on the other hand, a good deal about the diverse experiences of women that
is being exprcssed and stiJl needs to be expressed , but caution is needed with
respect to that theoretical language, for it does nol simply report a pre­
linguistic experience, but constructs that experience as weH as the Iimits of its
analysis . Regardless of the pervasive character of patriarchy and lhe preval­
ence 01' sexual diffe renl.:c as an operative cultural distinction, there is noth ing
about a binary gender system that is given . As a corporeal field 01' cultural
play, gender is a basically innovati ve afTair, aJthough it is q uite c1ear that
there are strict punishments 1'01' contesting the script by perfo rming out of
turn or through un wa rranted improvisations. Gender is not passively scripted
on the body, and ncither is it dctermined by nature, language, the symbolie,
or the overwhelming history 01' patriarehy , Gender is what is put on, invari­
ably, under constraint, daily and incessantly, with anxiety and pleasure, but
ir this continuolls aet is mistaken for a natural or linguistic given, power is
relinquished to expand the cultural field bodily through subversive perform­
ances 01' various kinds.
Notes
For a furthcr discussioo of Bcauvoir's fcminist contriblltion to phenomcnological
theory, see my ' Varialions on Sex and Gender: Beallvoir's Tite Se('ol1d Sex,' Ya/e
fi'ench Sll/die,l' 172 (1986).
2 M,lU J'ice Merleau-Ponty, 'The Body in its Sexual Being,' in The P henomell% gy (JI
Percep l;on, transo Colin Smith (Boston: Routledge ami Kcgan Paul, 1962).
3 Simone de Beallvoir, Th e Se('ond ,)'ex. trans, H . 1\1. Parshley (New York: Vintagc,
1974), 38.
4 Julia KristevH , Hislo;/'e eI'amo/lr (Paris: Editions Denocl, 1983),242,
5 See Michel Foucault, The Hislo/'J 01 Sexual;ly: An Jl1lroductir!l1, lrans. Robert
Hurley (New York: Random Ho usc, 1980), 154: 'the nOlion 01' "sex" made it
possiblc to group together, in an artificial unlty, anatomical elements, biological
functions , conducts, sensations, amI pleasun.:s, and it ena bled one lo makc use 01'
lhis fictitious unity as a causal principie ... ',
6 See Claudc Levi-Str"lIss , Tite:' Ele/1l1t/1t(/ry SII'/IClureS 01 Kins{¡;ji (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1965).
7 Gaylc Rubin , 'The Traffic in Women: Notes on the "Political Economy" of Scx.'
in To\\'urd (//1 Anlhropology oi Wom en , ed. Rayna R. Reiter (New York: Monthly
Revie\V Press, 1975), 178 - 85.
8 See 111y 'Variations on Sex and Gender: Beallvoir, Wittig, and Foucaull,' in
Fem;/l;sm as Critique , ed. Seyla Bcnhabib and Drucila Cornell (London: Basil
Hlackwell , 1987 [distributed by Univcrs ity of Minnesota Press]).
9 See Victor Turner. DramC/s, Fields, (/1/(1 Melaphors (lthaca: Cornell Universily
Press, 1974), Cl ifford Geertz slIjfgesb in ' Hl lIrrcd Genres: The Refiguration 01'
Tholl l,(hl,' in IAJ('(/I K llfIIl'lcdgl', Fl II'I/¡,· ,. F.S.l'(/\'.I' ;1/ Il/lc/'fI/'etil'i' Anthro{Jology (Ncw
York: Basic !ltl\'ks , 11)83), Ihal 111(' Ihl:al ft<',tI \1\\'laphOl' is lIscd hy recent s(lci,,1
11111
 11' 1 NCI! 1 r IU~ IJ ! U I 'd 1 1
1111'01 , \ "' I \VII ,d I¡ 11 '\1 '1 " ,·, 11 1)' wlly ~ 1{lIllId 1111" ", ,'.1 '.1110...' Vlcl ()r Tllrm;r rocus 011 a
flPl Htll .. 1 ''''' 'Ial .11 11 111 11 .,1 \ ,11'''11'. Io.lildo ,1' , I Jlll'¡j Il ', lpr Sl,tlling internal connicl~
wil lllll ;, l " IIIIII\' ,11111 1 "/!~' II,·rtllj lig so,;¡¡¡( L"hes'" I1. (> 11 Ihe o lher hand, symbo!ic
al'lh'lI ;¡l'l'r,,;¡d' l' ~ illl1l1 t: ll w~1 by fil!lI rC~ ;,S divel sl' as Emile D urkheilll , Kenl1eth
I~urh' , ;llId r...lld 'L'1 1"OI.lCil IlII , fúcus on Ihe way in which pol itical authority and
q II (.'~ I i, lll ~ ,,1' Il:gll illla Ii"lI are Ihemalized and settled \Vil hin the kr llls of perforlllecl
Illcallillg. (i\!t'I'IJ. hinl ~c lr Sllggcsts Ihat the lension mighl be viewed dialectical1y;
his sllId v .., I' r<l lilil';¡( o l'ganization in Bali as a 'theatre-stale' is a case in point. In
IcrlllS ()I' :I 11 (!~ p lil'ill y 1i:l1li nist account of gcndcr as perform at ive, il seems clear lo
me Ihal an aCCIlllnl orgender as ritualized, public performance must be combined
wilh an analy~is orlhe polilical sanclions and taboos under which that performance
lII uy :lnd 111<1) 1101 occu r within the public sphere free 01' punit ive conseq uencc.
10 Brllee Wibhjr~ , !?ole- Plaring (I/1{1 Idel//i/y: T he L rnilS o/ Th eatre as Me /apho r
fBOSIOII : ROlllledge ami Kegan Paul , 1(8 1).
11 Richard Schcchner, !Je/lI'eell 'f1Je(lIre (/111.1 AI//hropology (Philadelphia: University
,,1' PCll l1sylvan ia Prcss, 1985). See espeeially, ' News, Sex, alld Performance,' 295 ­
124-.
l.' In ¡\<follla ('(/lIIfI (!'rcntice-Hall , 1974), Anlhropologist Esther Newton gives an
urhen elhllography 01' drag queen s in which shc suggests that a l! gcndcr might be
lIndcrslood lln thc Illodel 01' drago In Gender: Al/ Elhl1ome!lwdologim l Approach
( 'hicago: Univcrsily of Chicago Press, 1978), SlIzannc J. Kess ler and Wendy
McKcnna arguc that gender is an 'accornplishrncnt' which requircs the skil1s of
lXlnslructing Ihe body intt) a social1)' 1cgitilTlate artifice.
11 See I;. rving (jofTmann , Tlle Presen/(//ion (JI Se(f' in El'eryday Lile (Gardcn City:
DOllhleday, 1(59).
14 Sec Michel f-'ollcall.(¡ 's edition 01' JIerclIline B(/rhin: The '/01lrl'/al.l' 01' (f Nine/een/h
Cell/II/')I Hcnc/¡ lIernlllphrodi/ e, transo Rich,lfd McDollgall (New y 'ork: Pantheon
BookS: 19R4), for <In interes tin g display o f Ihe horror evokcd by intersexed bodics.
Foucault's introdllctiolllllakes dea r tha t the medical delimitation of univocal sex
is yet anolher wayward application of the discoursc on truth-as-idenlity. See also
the w ~lrk (11' Robert Edgerton in American An/hropologis/ on the cross-cultural
variatio ns 01' respon ~e lo hermaphroditic bodies.
15 Remarks at Ihe Center for lIum anit ies, Wesleyan Un iversity , Spring, 1985.
lú Julia Kristcva, 'Woman Can Never Be Defined', transo Marilyn A. August, ,in Ne w
¡'¡-('/Ielt FelllinislIIs, ed. Elainc Marks and lsabelle de Courti\rron (New York:
Schockcll , 1981 l.
17 Mary Annc Warrcn, Gel/dercide: The IlI1plin tlio/ls Ii/ Sor Sela/io/l (Ne\\' Jersey :
Rowman anJ Allanheld, 1985).
1~ Ibid.; M ichcl Foucault , Discipline (I/l(1 Punis/¡: Tite Dir /h oI /h e PrisOIl transoAla n
Shcridan (Ncw York : Vintage Books, 1978).
110
II !
73
CHO R EOGR A PHI ES OF GE NDER
Susan Leigh Foster
Sourcc: S igns: .Ioumalo[ WOllle/l ill Culture alld Saciely 24( 1) (1998): 1- 34.
In 1989 and again in 1990, Teresa de Lauretis argued that the charge of
essentialism as ascribed to certain feminist theory or theorists promulgated
a d ivisive factionalisrn within the feminist movernent that would serve the
patriarchal status qu o far better than any antifeminist agendas . She urged a
reconsideration of the term e.l'sentialism, one that would reenvision it not
as a biologically based fixity but rather as a political and conceptual stance
that encompassed the knowledges, practices, and discourses wi th in which a
given author or text is irnmersed. Essential differences would therefore not
derive fro m natural or biological dilTerences, but from the historically specific
conditions that imparted to theories or theorists their values and assump­
tions, met hodological and conceptual approaches, and forms of add ress and
of critical ref!ection (de Lauretis 1990, 244). Altho ugh de Lauretis's redefini­
tion of esse ntialism sublates thc oppositionality betwcen gynocentric and
poststructural ist feminisms, or between a nalytical approaches informed by
identity politics 01' deconstruction, her proposal has gone largely unheeded,
especially in the ensuing fOCLlS on gender as performance.
The project of conceptualizing gender as performance, pervasive within
cultura l st udies, has been widcly debated in gender studies and feminist theory
for the past five years. Such a project, consonant with feminism 's dedicatlon
to the extrication ofgendered behavior from the biological body, foregrounds
the opportunity to analyze and observe gendcr's ostensible fea tu res, its appear­
ance a nd activities, promising a more critical diagnosis of gender's inftuence
and effects, while at the same time holding out the possi bility fo r social
change, Ir, the argument goes, gender is " only" a performance , albeit deeply
routinized and ingrained, then the theoretical space exists wherein sllch
behavior could be resisted , alterecl, and refashioned so as to alleviate the pre­
s\:riptiolls fo r gendercd behavior ¡hat are cxpericnced as oppressive by so many.
r hc sl:ra ru ti on betwcen aetor llnJ performa nce implied by this approach
lO Ihe a na lysi:. 01' gcndcr ~ upports a Il u; ol iz;.t lio n 01' pcrsonhooo as fluid and

 I U HN ¡" J I' Y i\N I I 1" 11 11 ~ Il I . I '
prot l:a n l.:ult Llr¡1I l.:~l n s l r lll.!ti ()1I c,:a pahk Iw t u nl y nI' changc but also ul' illhab­
iting, perha ps evcn n.:pn:sI.!Jlt ing, IIlllltipk, Jistinctive cultural arenas. Such
a conception 01' identity raJically challenges lhe essentialist notion 01' an
organic and inviolable connecl ion between the biological determinants 01'
sex, mce, or sexual orientation and their cultural e1aboration. This organ­
icist conception ofthe link hetween body and identity , a foundin g argument
in so many forms of racial , gender, and sexual d iscrimination, has been
deconstructed by poststrueturalist critiq ues that foe us a ttention on the very
mechani sms orknowledge production through wh ich th e eon nection between
biologicaJ destiny and cultural possibility is made and maintained . Yet, the
ten-sion bet\Veen essential and deconstructed models o f experience endures,
trenchan tly and eloquentl y summarized here \Vith regard tO racia l identily by
dance ethnographer Anna Beatrice Scott:
Now 1 pride m yself on being a post-essenti a list bJack persono but
when I \Vent to él Moco afro rehearsal in San F rancisco intent upon
doing sorne Black Atlantic researeh this past M arch only to discover
that I was one o f only five black peop1e out of at least fifty parti­
eipants. inc1uding the drumrners and teacher, I was having a hard
time controlling my proprietary ami protective instincts regarding
hlack culture. I stood amidst the collection of Anglo, Asian , and
Latino participants in the room , questionnaires in hand , smile on
face , ami wondered to myself, " Where are the black people?" W hy
did it matter to me? And why was everyone staring at me, the
materialization of the adjective in Mo co afj·o?
(1997 , 259)
As " post-essentialist," Scott wants to detach skin color and other racial
attributes from a mandated way of life. and as black, shc wants to retain
privileged access to a cultural heritage. Scott names this dilcmma and even
complicates it further by receiving critically the gaze directed at her as an
"authen tic" representative of the h!oto a/j·o tradition. ls the gaze she receives
directed not only at her black body but also at her feminine body? What is in
her "flesh and bones" that makes her dancing "truer," more Moco afi'o than
that of Anglo, Asian, or Latino bodies dancing alongside her?
De Lauretis orrers an opportllnity to think through these questions by
identifying essential differences as those that result from a profound and endur­
ing immersion in cultural and historical speeifkities. Yet essential differem:es
often inflect and complicate one another, necessitating a theoriza tion not
only 01' their historical and cultural specificity bllt <L Iso of their interconnee­
tedness. A~ Yvonne Ya rbro- Oejara no and ma ny ot hcrs have o bserved , this
theoriz a tion or gendered , racia l, and sexua l ¡;at\!gu rics 11l 1l~ t imxl rporate the
ongoing dynamics o f thci r irnpact o n onc a nl)! hl:r; .. Nol il \I\ ~ \1 1' sill/ulf(/l1co/ls
oppressions are nol cn! irdy S1I1.:cess 1'11 I in ca pl lll ¡lI lo Il ll' wa ys 1IIcsc catego ries
11 -'
I II I JIU 1) Il I( i\ l' 11 II ! ~ 111 (¡ H N I) l ' Il
interad " lid illl Cllldillc lllle another, wh ik cllm:cpl uali/.ing Ihe illl('rsccliol1 01"
these ca lcgll rics may comrnlll1i catc an excessively sta tic, rathcr than a dyn­
amic, understanding or the process" (1995 , 128). Thc task , then , in focusing
DI! gcnder, as one catcgory of cssential dil'ferenee, is to construct il in inter­
relation with racial and sexual configurations ol'identity. O ne ofthe purposes
DI' this articl c is to suggest th at the l'ai lme to develop de La uretis's concept of
csscntial ditTerence and to conceptllalize gender i.n dynamic relation with race
and sexuality stems fra m the unexamined use of th e term performance.
Is peljómUll1ce the most appropriate term to describe lhe sedimented layers
and comp1ex nctworks of behavioral responses that constitute masculine and
feminine roles? Since there are different techniques and theories 01' perform­
ance - the perrormer can a ssimilate the character of the part to be played
and allow that character's l'eelings and motivations to generate and guide
the actions, or the performer can care[ully approxim ate beh aviors j udged to
be typical of the character to be rendered - d oes gender as performance also
stipulatc a particular approach to performing? Most crucially , if gender is
performance, what script or score is being pcrl'ormed? For those o f us in
dance , thcater, anu performance studies, the recent appropriation ofperfórm­
al1ce and its eousin pel.Jármalil'ity as terms that \vould illuminate cultural aud
textual studies signals a potentially fruitful interdisciplinary inqu iry, but one
that calls for certain discipline-based know1edgc about the fun etions 01' these
terms.
Rather than appea] to knowledge bases generatcd in the field s ol' theater,
dance , and pelt o rmance studies for answers to these questions, argum enL~
for gender as performance typically acknowledge the work 01' speech -act the­
orist J. L. Austin (1962) as a foundational approach. A ustin 's theory a l' t he
performativity 01' languagc, a radical opening out of language to social and
political dimensions, posits that under certain conditions the speaking of
a phrase might alter the status of the body performing the speaking. It d oes
not make any daims for speech as a form of bodily articulation (something
that the phrase " speech acts" might suggest), nor does it explore action as
an accomplishrnent of the body. For Austin. the bod)', fundamentally the
passive executant ofthe subject, enunciates words in the direction of another
body-subject \Vith \Vhich it intends 10 eommunicate. Sorne of its commun­
ications, by contractual agreement within the sociolinguistic order, perform
the work ofreordering the speaker 's relations 10 !lis or her surroundings, as in
the often-cited example 01' "1 do " as the pivotal statement in the marriage
ccremony. The allure of Austin 's focus on linguistic performances for more
general theories of performance presumably resides in the proposition that
lhe enactment or a gcncralized cultural script will implicate the individual in
juridical and political networks of meaning that exercise a determining effect
Dn identity . But can such a framewo rk of distinctio ns betwcen performa tive
anJ nonperfOnlHltivc linguistic utterances he ex tended to the full realm ol'
hc havior wit hin wh kh ccrlai n gl!sLurcs might be identitlcd as gendercd'!
11 \
 /f J!:N I l n
Jlldi LlI Bll lkl , wllos\.:' (¡('//d,',' / /( ,/1"'(' (1, )1)( 1,1) IS llrt \.:'1l 111\.:' citcd source ror
the notion \, r g~' lIdn a:. pcrfO llll al1\;,\.:', d rílW'i ll ll A ll slin's lhcorit:s to emphasize
the :;edimcnlcd lll'lworks o f sllc inl IIllllllS Ih rl1l1gh which lhe subject is con­
1
stituted as gCllllcred . BlIl lcr's Clllle\:plio ll 01' pcrforma livity, not unlike de
La uretis's l'ssl'lllial Ji ffe re nce, foells\:s nn lhe historically specifie eonstella­
ti on 01' rei lcralive and citati on al patterns, the regulatory system, and not on
any single or delibe rate ac ts 01' individuals, that interpelJate lhe subject as
a gcndered subjeet. 2 Bu t for Bu tler it is difficult to envision how either per­
t'ormalll.:e or performativity extends beyond the verbal rt:alm into n onverbal
dirnensions of human aetion, Although in early version s of her thco ry of
gcnder iden ti ty, Bu tler (1990b, 270) mentions bodily gcstures, movernen ts, and
enactrnents 01' various kinds, in Bodies ThalMaller sh e defi nes performative
acts as " forms 01' authoritati ve speeeh: most performatives, for instance, are
staternents that, in the uttering, also perform a certain action and exercise
a binding power" (1993 , 225). In her only reading of a no nprinted text, the
film Par¡.\' Is Burning, Butler notes the categories of eharaett:r types that are
perforrned at the drag balls and their eostuming, but she never examines the
eclectic movement vocabularies and the sequencing 01' those voeabularies
through which social commentary is generated. She considers the relation­
ship between pedestrian and stage identities without actually detailing the
ranges of exaggerative and ironie gestures used in eaeh site. 0nly by assessing
lhe artieulateness of bodies' motions as well as speeeh, ] wou ld argue, can the
inlerconneetedness of racial , gendered , and sexual differences within and
among these bodies matter.
Performativity for Butler not only lodges primarily in the verbal dimen­
sions of human behavior but also exercises its power through compulsory
reiteration. In order for gender to appear as natural , as the inevitable pro­
duct 01' the body 's sex, the acts through which it is constituted are repeated
so Crequently and interminably as to forec1ose any possible apprehension
01' their eonstructedness: " Performativity is thus not a singular ' aet,' for it is
always a reiteration of a norm or set of norms, and to the extent that it
aeqllires an act-Iike status in the present, it coneeals or dissirnulatcs lhe
conventions 01' whieh it is a repetition " (1993, 12). By ddlning gender identity
as reiterative, as a stylil.ed repetition of social norms through time, Butler is
ablc to unmask the eontingent status of those norms and their coe rcive
cffeets.:\ Although Butler emphasizes that performativity can be located on ly
in multiple rather than single acts , the foc us on rciteralion stresses the repeti­
lion of acts more th an the relationality arnong thern. Ilow are lhese "aets "
organized so as rnutua"y to reinforce and/or expanJ o n one another'! ]-]ow do
acls nol ol1ly reilerate social norms but a l50 va ry thcl11 so as lo cstablish
rcso na n<.:es aInon g t1 ist il1cl catcgories o f 110 rm a livc hdlavior?
In thi s arli<.:lc 1 plll SII C a I11cllwdolúgy Jcsi!!l1\:d 111 i1ll swc r Ihese q ucst ions
Ih rn ugh a fú c lIs OH II\(' cxul11plc nf dance. Danco.! illll llli lll' s tire issucs a l stakc
ill :I n an:llysis q rgc lI( [¡ ' 1 ;IS pcrro rl11:tnu! no l. ,,, lv hel ;\11 ',\' da n....e. li kc genJ e r,
) 14
11 ' ,
I lit! In () ( , It ¡\ l' 111 I S I 11 1 (; I! N 1) I It
1a111sists I¡¡rgely uf bodily m.: lions ruther than efTccls 01' spcceh, but also
ncca u:;c il dcli ncatt:s a clear funclion Co r the perforrner. By examining the role
01' performance in dance and contrasting it with choreograph y, 1 hope to
SllOW that choreography is a far more useful rubric for understanding gende r.
('horcography, the tradition of eodes and conventions through which mean­
ing is constructed in dance , offers a social and historical analytie fram ework
rol' the study of gender, whereas performance conccntrates on the individual
execution of such codeso C horeograph y resonates with cultural values con­
cerning bodily, individual, and social identities, whercas performance focuses
on the skill neeessary to represent those identities. Choreography presents
a struct uring o f deep an d enduring cultural values that replicates similar
sets ofvalues elaborated in other cultural praetices, whereas performance em­
phasizes the idiosyncratic interpretation of those values. Like perforrnativity,
ehoreography consists in sets of norms and conventions; yet unlike perforrn­
ativity, or at least its general usage thus far , choreography encompasses
l.:Orporeal as welJ as verbal articulateness. Choreography therefore serves as
a useful intervention into discussions 01' materiality and body by focusing
on the unspoken , on the bod ily gestures and movements that, along with
speeeh, eonst ruct gendercd identity. C horeograph y also fo<..:uses attention on
the interrelationality 01' various sets of codes and conventions through which
identity is represented .
1n wha! follows 1 present an analysis of both choreography and perfo rm ­
ance through a consideration of examples drawn from social and lheatrical
dance traditions. My purpose is to intervene in the general discussio n 01'
gender as performance and to examine critically key oppositions - bclwee n
essentialism and deconstruction, the corporeal and the linguistic, a nu the
lextual amI the perforllled - th a t undcrlie that discussion . At the same lime,
1 hope to demonstrate the value ol' danee as a conceptual framework ror
sorting through these very cornplex issues. FocLls on dance enables a more
thorough understanding of the cultural constructedness of body and idenlity
and a more far-reaching se! of strategies for effecting social ehange.
Theorctical mOl'es
In order to iHuminate \\'hat is entaiJed by the choreographie process, 1 begin
\Vilh the examplc of the lone female choreographer at work in the dance
studio. This example traces ib origin to the modern dance tradition in the
United States, a tradition whose feminist underpinnings have been welJ docu­
mcnted .4 This initiative, undertaken by white, bourgeois women at the turn
of the century, eonstructed a new expressive practice focused at the site of the
individual dancing body . These artists sought to overhaul body and soul in
order to liberate individu al <.: rea live impulses fro rn the. :;tranglehold 01' soeietal
no rllls a mI acslhclie va lues. T hci r cho reo/;.t raphie accomplishments. eongru­
L'nl with ex pcl'imell 1al philo))ophics Ot' Cdllculilln dllrin g lhal period, proviJed
 II H iN Tl 1'\ J\N I I ril E S I'I l ·
the rationale ro r the en tranl,;c (JI' dance inl t> highcr cdllcation. ; Construeo as
a wa y 01' knowirlg, other than and outside 01' verbal knowledge, the profes­
sional world 01' modern dance a no the university oance program continue to
privilege the in<li vid llal creative proccss ano its realization in dancing and in
the making of new dances.
In maki ng a new da nce, the choreographer often stands motionless, slarin g
inlo space, perha ps a mirror's space, ror an indeterminate period 01' time.
Then she tries out a move: one arm Rings on the diagonal from low front to
high back: the body f10ws a fter it, mo tion-filled by its momentum . The leg,
initially trailing behind as Lhe last trace 01' the body's twistcd turning, swings
suddenly to Ihe front, causing enough impetus to ca rry the body through a
second turn oE xiting from the turn 's wildness. lhe body folds at hip and knee
joints, back gently c urved , arms arching forwa rd over the head . The choreo­
grapher stands back up and resumes her stare. Does the turn need an addi­
tional bend of lhe t orso or gesture from the back foot'? Should the contrast
between first and second turns be heightened? Is the body's fi nal shape too
symmetrical? Too soft? Too fami liar? This series 01' questions promulgates
other levels 01' interrogation: fs tbe phrase delirious enoug h'! Does it look
like half-baked Trisha Brown? W in everyone see that it is a variation on
the earlier theme? Can the dancer do it without wrenching her back? Should
the arms scoop L1nder (in which case it looks too much like supplication) or
should they scoop over (in which case it looks like a five-yea.r-old 's rendition
of waves crashing on the shore)? The choreo¡''Tapher wrestles with these and
related questions in no prescri bed order and , quite probably, without ever
articulating the questions or tbeir answers verbally. She is sorting through,
rejecting and constructing physical images. Her choices make manifest her
theorizing 01' corporeality.
The choreographer constructs relationships 01' body to momentum , stasis,
impulse, and f10w and articulates relationships 01' the body's parts one to
another. She engages the body's semiotic field - the connotations that head ,
hands, pelvis, or heels carry with them , the meanings evoked by tension,
undulation, or collapse - and situates the body within the symbolic features
01' the performance spaee - the center, side, high, and low that the architcc­
tu ral context designates. In so doing, she fashions a repertoire of bodily
actions that may confirm ano elaborate on conventional expectations for
gendered behavior, o r she may contrive a repertoire that dramatically con­
travenes such expectations. In either case, dancing dramatizes the separatio n
betwecn the anatomical identity of the dancer and its possible wc.lys 01' mov­
ing. Part of dance 's compelling interest derives from th e kinds of links the
choreography makes between sex and gender.
Thi s is not to say lhat the anatomica l body oft he ua neer is a na t ura l body .
Th at bod y exists ,Llong a continuum 01' altribu lcs Ihal d efille ma le or f'cmalc
sex ual iden ti ty. Ils sho uldcrs may be unusua ll y hWlld rOl a W\lI llan , il::; rcet
un usua ll y Ocxihlc fill aman . t\nJ Ihis an;¡I \IIllV i:; 1101 d ~· ...lilly T hc dal1l.:c r
I j(,
, ' IJIII{ H )(i l(J\I ' I II Il S UIi i: ll N I , I ' I{
clIltivatcs Ihe hody through tra ining reginh:lIs lhat dcvelop its strength,
fl cx ibility, endurance, and coordination. r, It may acquire a massivc muscLllar­
ity uncharacteristic of the fem ale body or a willowy f1exibility uncharacter­
istic of the maJe body. This body, already codified in terms 01' its sex but
appearing as one oftwo sexes, then presents itselfto the viewer. Its movement
\ViII be seen as gendered , as putting into pla y various codes 01' gendered
behavior.
Thus the cboreographer considers kinds 01' bodil y stances (open or
c1osed), bodily shapes (erect or curved), engagements with the surrounding
space (direct 01' diffuse). timing of U1 0vements (slo\V or quick , continuous
or abrupt), qualities of motion (restrained , sustained . undulating, bursting),
and sequencing 01' body parts (random or sequential) characteristic 01' caeh
gen der 's motion .7 She stipulates a quality 01' focus for the dancer. projecting
attentiveness to the connections between internal sensation and externa]
motion , projecting awareness of external space ami making contact \Vith
other danee rs, or calling attention to the booy 's enunciations in space. She
likewise designates a ki nd of motivation for the movement in which dancers
can appear to be propelled by an imagin a ry force located out in space or to
initiate 1l10vemcnt from within their own bodies. She reck o ns with estab­
lished codes of contact bctween female and male bodies: whe re the body 01'
one sex can touch the body 01' the other sex, what kinds of shapes bodies of
the two sexes can make together, who can give weight and who bear it. who
initiates movell1ent and who follows , \Vho is passive and who active, who is to
be looked at and who is doin g the looking. She forges phrases 01' movemen t
that construct groupings of dancers with gendered connota tions - c hao li c,
convoluted. pristine, or geometrie. When she does this for multiple bod ies ,
she elaborates a theory not onJy of gendered eorporeal identity bul a lso 0('
relations among gendered bodies.
Male and female bodies, bodies 01' different color and racial atlributes
may or may not evidence vocabularies or styles 01' mo vement associatcd with
their sexual or racial identities. These bodies gest ure toward , tOllch. or sup­
port one another. They follo\\' in one a nother's pathways, reiterate or vary
one another's moves . They evidence a range 01' emotional responses toward
one another, all the whilc oblivious to or interactive with the audience. They
may distribute themselves so as to frame a soloist or to present multipl e
competing events. They may cite othcr dances or dance traditions as part 01'
their danced argument. In the sustained devclopment 01' their activities, they
\\'ill appear to narrate events, to tell a kind ol'story , perhaps wilh characters,
motivations, and responses to one another, or perhaps to speak ofthe weight.
momentum, and agility 01' which bodies are capab1c. They may enllnci alc
values and rclationships characteristic 0 1' a particular ethnic iJcntifl cati o n,
or lhey may present a series 0'- affcl!tivc Sla les. t\ccuOl ulat ing these choil.:cs
cQncerning lhe beh a vior 0 1' nod ics , tli t' l'hm l'0l:lJ'aphy builJs U f') a n imHgl' ('l l'
cDllll11l1nil y. Oll \: Ihat a rliculalcs blllll illdi vi d llul a nd collcdlvc h.lcnl ilics.
I 1/

'I ltrough v ul lh¡; Cn':a ll vc J11Ol'CSS n i :11 I1I 1I 1.1 11I 1~' lla\,:sl' idclltities, lhe choreo­
gl'a flllcr cnga g~s ;¡ lrad ilion nI' J'c¡m.:scn la 11 1111,, 1 l'lIl1vcntiol1s, k nowlcogc of
whkll is shareo to a grealc r 01' Icssc r cxltm l by holll dance makers ano oane_e
vicwcrs. To achieve I hc ll1eaning shc envisions, lile choreographer selccts
1'1t1111 among these con ven lions, implementing, innovating, ano even cha lleng­
iJl11 II spects of the lrad ilion. Viewers will, in tum, analyze thc c horeographic
illlpk mentation of conventions in order to derive their own interpretation of
Ihe dance. H owever intuitive or inspired the creative process may seem , the
choreographer is nonetheless laboring at the craft 01' dance making. However
Jislinctive Or giftcd her dances may seem, she is worki ng as one of a group
or practitione rs sharing a body of knowledge about how oances mean what
Ihey do. However immeoiate lhe oance's message may appear to viewers,
th uir lI nderstanding of the oance will be baseo on their abil ity to decode the
cll o n:ographic cod ing of meaning. Thus, the choreography may contribute
illnovations that \ViII subtly alter the contents of its representational traoi­
110/1 but these innovations can acquire their full meaning only through their
';I III, lleoness within that traoition.
I >ü ncers who enter the stuoio to translate choreography into perform­
.111\\' begin by Iearning the movement, its timing, ano its disposition for the
Ihldy in space, as meticulously as is requireo by the aesthetic ocmanos of
lile situation . Yet they also mooify lhe movement so as to develop a personal
rel:tlionship with it. In order to " make it their own," they may alter move­
rnc nl to aoapt to their bodily capacitics so that they, ano by extcnsion the
IIltlVemcnt itself, achieve greater c1arity in performance . They may imbue
I he Illovemenl with personal meani_ngs in addition to those describeo by the
dl llreographer so as to attain a greater fervency. They may elaborate a
per!itlila - - an integrative conception of the booy-subject who would move in
lIJ e way specified in the choreography - ano then use this concept to further
tdi m: stylistic features of their performance. They may also ealculate the
l'Ifct"! of their performance on viewers ano calibrate effort , intensity , ano
IOl'lIS so as to "reach " the auoience in a manner consonant with the choreo­
JI':J phy's theoretical goals. They may even connect to a history of perfonners
111 a traoitional style of performance that informs lheir current project.
1hf\ll tghout the process of learning a nd presenting a oance, performers
IlIanifest these ano other competcncies, the product of years of arouous
Ilaining.
On ;asionally, oaneers are askeo to movc beyono the bounos of lheir train­
ing as performers ano to assume roles as eochoreographers of t he oance.
TlJ cy l1lay be asked to genera te movement baseo on specific strictures o r
)!lIiJelines. to solve problems of seq ueneing, or cven to engage cri lically,
;Oll1 l11cn t on, or select fro m among the representatio llal slrategics that lhe
~ lJ ml'()graphy oeploys and that they embody in pcrfll rmancc. 'rhe fúcl tha t
da nCC ls Illay élssist in Ihcse choreographie projccls Itowewr, d oes no l alt er
I he ~Ii~j inelivcncss tll' I he !Wll roles. Insofa r as Ihl'Y ;11 l' 1'\.'1 rn l meno¡. IlJey will
II X
I 1"
t " llClln:t l (i R A I' 111f S 111· c; HNU l lt
he concc rllcJ prll l1al il y wilh lhese kinds of q ucstiol1s: Ilow shall I phrase this
scction? Should I 1I0ld back here in order to provide more contrast with the
intcllsity 01' that 111oment? Does my timing appear mannered? C an I be more
rocused? How can I look occupied with one action while act ually waiting for
Ihe arrival ofanother body with Wh0111 I must appear to have a spontaneous
interaction? What aoditional strcugth , fl exibility, or enduranee do l need to
enhance the exccution of the movement?
How the performcr answers these questions will affect the overall i111pact
01' the ehoreogra phy and rnay subtly alter its intent. Cerla inly , there is a sense
in which the performance of a ny given dance stands as the most aCClIrate
presentation of its choreography (stand s as the choreography) insofar as a ny
given viewer has aecess to it. Still, throughout the viewing of a da nce, one ca n
pcrceive the gllioing score for the action as distinct from the exccution o ft hat
score. One can see the residue of strategi¡; choiccs conccrning rcpresentation
as distinct from the bringing to Iiveness of those choices. And in this distinct­
iveness, the contrasting fllTIctions of choreography and performance are
apparent : dance making theorizes physieality, whereas dancing presents that
theory of physicality .
Embodying the social
The premise of a new oance being made illustrates most graphically the kinds
of oecisions through which choreography comes into being. But the distinc­
tion between choreography ano performan¡;e that I wish to elaborate works
equally \Vell within the context of " authorless" choreographies ranging from
sqllare dances .lo fox-trots , ano it extends far beyond conventional notions or
oancing to induoe a wide variet)' of structllred movement practices such as
parades or political oemonstrations, religious rites or academia lectures. F or
any of these structureo movcment practices, a set of protocols (what 1 have
called a tradition) exists that \ViII be referenced by the choreography and then
vivifieo by thc specific performance. For sqllare dances, such protocols would
aovise on proximities and qualities of touch bet\Veen bodies; trajectories for
bodies traveling through space; patterns or steps; relations among move­
ment, music , ano caller. For an aeaoemic lecture. there exist protocols for
Icctllrer ano Iisteners regaroing tl1eir loeation , the appropriate kino and
alllount ofbodily postllres ano gestures. Choreographies ror indivioual square
oances oiffer widely in kind and nllmber of steps and the eomplicatcd
sequencing of those steps. Lectures are choreographed in accordance with the
formality of the oecasion ano their disciplinary affiliaüon. Many square
dances have no identifiable choreographer, and, like the guidelines for the
Iccturc. they have been passcd lhrough generations of perfonners who may
makc incremental cho reogr aph ic changcs lo them. No matter how dynamic
lhc d an cing, how ch a risllla tic lhe b:lu ring, llll: chorcognl phic specifications
un dc rl ying Ihuso perfo nllanccs n:lIll1 in I h ~ sunlC. x
 'PliN " I j'\' ¡\NII 11/1 -;11. 1. 1'
Uy Jislill gllishill g hclw~'c l1 chun: uglanh y ami per formance, lhc process
01' gencraling cor~l(m;al significa nn: cun be mude morc apparent. It is lhis
process that connects da nce to olher cultural practices and larger systems 01'
cultural values. Consider, for eXC:Ullplc , the striking divergence in movemen t
vocabula ries for male and female roles in European ballet that began to
de velop at the beginn ing of the nineteenth ccnt ury and the concomitant
implementation 01' pointe work for the fcm ale ballerina. Althollgh promlll­
gated through lhe skills 01' individual dancers such as M arie Taglioni and
Fanny Ellsler, the slldden emergenee 01' dancing on pointe can be traeeJ to no
single choreographer. Its widespread use by fem a le soloists of miJcentury
constructed a radically new vision of both femin ine an d masc ul ine roles in
which fem ale dancers embod ied an illusive fragili ty and maje dancers SlIp­
ported , aumired, and yearned after them. The choreography 1'01' these gen­
dered roles made manifest a version 01' the R ousseaui an social contract with
its division of duti es betwecn mascllline public and feminine private spheres.
It staged a new vision of mascllline and feminine identities as uniqlle and
complementary parts 01' an organic social whole rather than as ordered ele­
ments of a social hierarch yY
Throughout the eighteenth century, male and female dancers shared a
single vocabulary of positions and steps. They performed the same traveling
phrases, beats, turns, and jumps, with stylistic differences that signified lheir
roles : male daneers jUJ1lped higher, multiplied the numbers 01' beats and
tllrns, and exhibited a more foreerul grace than female daneers, who per­
formeJ smaller versions of these steps with a softer and more fluid style. By
the early nineteenth centu ry, the choreography celebratcd distinet voeablll­
aries for male and female dancers - dainty and complex footwork and
extended balances for women, and high leaps.jumps with beats, and mllItipJe
pirouettes for meno And it elaborated new conventions of partnering that
ineorporated ne\\' eodes for touching, for support, and for the aehievement
of pleasing eonfigurations. Up until the end of the eighteenth century, pas de
dellx had plaeed great emphasis on male and female daneers performing
aJongside one another or traveling separately designated pathways in mirroreJ
opposition. By the mid-ninetcenth eentllry, partnering included sections of
sustained , slowly evolving shapes in which male and female dancers con­
structed intricate designs, always with the mal e dancer guiding and support­
ing the female dancer as she ba laneed delicately and suspensefully in fully
extended shapes.
In tandem with Ihis shift from hierarehieally to organically related gender
roles. praetices ranging from fashion to postural pedagogy to anatomical
study undertook analogo us redefinition:; of gen der roles. In fashion. mascu­
line garb, as colorful and ornamented as womcn's wl!ar dllrin g the eighteen th
ccnlury, tran sformed into sober and mmkst dC'iign:i tll al ~mrhasiled the
jutlici o us di~p(lsil¡l) n 1)1' n1l;:1I and lhe frivo luus illl: lillilll llllS uf women. T he
con¡él, l/ scd a s ;J Ssi¡'; I ;II \\:~ ill Illai nlaini llg:ln Cfl'l'l )l1l!> IIIII', wa s ahando llcd by
11()
( ' lIl1 lt l · (I(' R J\I' III PS (!I ' r:I : NIHI~
both SI.: X1.: S in fa vor uf prograllls 01' cxc rci sl.: thal wOl/ld I.:nabk lhe bndy to
establish its ()WIl vcrticality, but was Ihcn reintrodueed ror women , not as
IO
postural aid but as enhancemcnt to the body's gendered appearance. The
corset shrank the waisl and ex panded Ihe pelvis. Similarly. anatomical illus­
trations that had previously used the male skeleton as a reference for both
sexes. adjusting only the si ze of the fema\e bones, began to depict female
skeletons from female examples. H owever, they often exaggerated the width
of the pelvis and reduceJ the size of lhe head so as to provide bone-deep
verifieation 01' women 's role as childbearer."
These kinds 01' changes in ballet, fashion , and anatomical study contrib­
uted to the massive overhaul of gender roles that established the separate
spheres ideo logy ofthe nineteenth century. Yet it is only th rough an attention
to choreographie structure that ballet's ideological work beeomes apparent.
If ballet were analyzed in terms of the performance skills it required , a
complementary yel distinct set of issues would emerge. In order to perform
well. female ballerinas neeessaril y cult ivateJ new strengths fOf rising onto
and balancing on pointe. They mastered patterns of f10w that would enhance
their ephemerality and dextroLls coordinations that would make them both
intricate and f1eeting. Male dancers likcwise learned the placement ofwcight
and lhe eoordination neeessary to assist another body in these precarious
anJ eomplex tasks. Both sexes \carned to exploit lhe foeus necessary to direct
the viewers' gaze towa rd the ballerina. While these skills exemplify the
gender-specific varieties of bodily discipline lO which dancen; werc subject,
they do not cOllvey the full construction of gendered identity articulated in
the nineteenth-century pas de deux , nor do they indicate the extent to which
ballet helped to consolidate the widespread change in gender ro les. O nly by
focusing on choreographic ehanges can one see ballet's connectedness to
other cultural practices aecomplishing similar redeflllitions of gender. Only
by analyzing those changcs that reorganized male anJ female vocabularies
and the coordination of male and female interaction can one see ballet not as
a mere refleetion of social changes but as olle 01' Ihe endeavors that produce
such ehanges.
An alternative relation between dancing bodies and Ihe social body
was artieulated on lhe black urban U .S. street-as-stage of the late 1970s.
Fighting to survive at Ihe ver y margins of society, break-dancers, primarily
male, choreographeJ black social prolest and urban renewal during a time of
accclerating c1ass differentiation and the dccimation of inner-city neighbor­
hoods and resources. 12 Their choreography responded directly lo the simul­
taneous crises of depleted housing, laek of meaningful jobs, rising police
brutality, and increasing commoJity fetishism and to the technological
cx plosio n of devices for reproducing sonic and visual images .J:\ Presenting
thcir ch Meograph y on lhe street comer, lhey o lTercd a critique 01' bourgeois,
largely whi te, pri vileges asso(:Ía led wil h altcllding thc thcater. with the theater
l:llnslJ'lIl:d as (In dil e com mcmmlll iol l oClíf¡;'s highest v<tllles. At lhe same
I ~! 1
 I III N '1'1'1'\ " N" el 111 : .s 11 r. F
time. tbey cUllsecratcd lile SII 'l.~L'1 as a silt' fUI POl.l'l1tial n~ju vcJl ati\)l l of a
discnfra nchised and tll:ép ly alicnakd por lllacl~ .
Break dance culliva led thc jointcdness o f body and thetlow of motion
across [hose joints sequentially bUI so as to fent ure each j oin t as mueh as the
movemen t aeross it. Into this synthesis of rupture and flo w, dancers incor­
porated astonishing virtuoso spins on the bead or should ers, splits, and back
and forward flips ; freeze poses that stilled the body in a earicatured version of
a well-known social type or socia l gesture; and citations 01' other danccrs'
characteristic movem ents and 01' other dance traditions. These citations
funet ioned as dialogues, as playful and com petitive mastery 01' other daneers'
materi al. and as expressions 01' solidarity with ea rlier A fro-Am erican a nd
Afri can dance traditions. 1n their borrowings from forms such as karate a nd
Capoiera, they also placed break dancing on the world stage 01' popular
culture. In consecutive solos or sometimes duets an d larger groups, dancers
crafted these dialogues with breathtaking speed of movement a nd agility in
transitions. The competitive stakes of each performance aUowed dancers lo
enhance their status and increasetheir prestige within a masculine-domina ted
arena.
The power and eloquence of the dance resulted from bodies negotiating
precarious, dangerous tensions between anatomy and gravity coupled with
the critical and witty commentary on other bodies and dance forms. Accord­
ing to Tricia Rose, it was these choreographic features of break dancing thal
connected the dance to its political environs and imbued it with resistance
and affirmation:
What is the significancc offlow, layering, and rupture as demonstrated
on the body and in hip hop's Iyrical , musical, and visual works?
Interpreting these concepts theoretically, one can argue that they
creatc and sustain rhythmic motion, continuity, and circularity via
flow; accumu)ate, reinforce, and embellish this continuity through
layering: and manage threats to these narratives by building in rup­
tures that high1ight the continuity as it lllomentarily challenges it.
Thcse effects at the leve! 01' style and aesthetics suggest affirmative
ways in which profound social dislocation and ruptu re can be man­
aged and perhaps contested in the cultural arena. Let us imagine these
hip hop principies as a blueprint for social resistance and affirmation:
crea te sustaining narratives., acculllulate them, layer, em bellish, and
transform them. Ho\Vever, be also prepared for rupture, find pleas­
ure in it, in fact , plan on social rupture. W hen lhese ruptures Occur,
use them in crcative ways tha t will plerJarc yo u fOI a fUlu re in wh ich
survival will dellland a suddcn shi fL in CnlLllH.l tael iCS. 11
Rosc's ca l! l.P c.onsidef' Ihe úancillg " thCl) r¡,:lkllll y" nHll..l's cvillcnt illO crilica l
capacil y , ill l!tal il shuws tite rtlplll l'\:S. :llId il s Clll llI 'IVl' llIl tl po lClll i:II, iJl I)¡al
/ "1
( 1111 tU i C)(i It ¡\ l' 1III S 11" ¡; 1IN 1I I I
it sh ows t)¡\! body Ilcgoliating thosc rU[1ltll'l;s illIJ I¡¡king ph:astIrc ¡I! th ul
ellorl. Survival depends on tlle kinds 01' indi vidual agility and com l11 l1nal
solidarity tha! the dancc expresses.
Break dancing's delllonstra tion of survival tactics was a l! the lllOr!! p¡;r­
suasive beca use the dancers were improvising the choreography in perlOIlIl­
Clnce. Like j azz, break dancing required the choreographcr-perforlllcl lo
draw on previoLlsly choreographed and rehearsed pbrases and to SCCllIél ll: C
these along \Vith newly invented material in ways that yielded un premedilaled
results. Wi thin the white tradition ofmodern dani.:e, improvisati on frequenLl y
implies a lessening of conscious intent so as to allow unconsci ou s impu lses lo
emerge. 1.\ Consonant \Vith the Afro-American tradition of jazz, improviscd
dancing such as t ap or break dancing docs no t partake in lhe cOfL.')ci o us!
unconscious binary. Instead , improvisers can craft their composition all he
same time that they allo\V opport uni ties for the una nticipa led lO eme rge. I (,
By improvising, the da ncers were literally placing their bodies in the soc ial
rupture that Rose describes and dedicating themselves to the creati on amI
resolution of haza rdous corporeal dilemmas. The choreographic foml man ­
dated a distinguished individual performance, where individual initiati ve
and exploration could verify masculine bravado. At the same time, dam:ers
signaled comrnunal affiliations and aggressivc competition th ro ugh l.hG
danced dialogues they chosc to incorporate. Although dancers oceupieJ Ihe
dual roles of choreographer and perfomler, the responsibilities and eva llwl ­
ive standards 01' cach role can be distinguishcd . Choreograpby was cvalua l..:d
by dancers and vie\Vcrs in terrns 01' the range and vividness of citations; IIIL'
innovative sequencing; the rcsponsivcncss to music , crowd, and conkxl.
and the deftness with which the body \Vas extricated from uoa ntü.:í rut cd
situations. Performance evaluation was based on the charisrna, cool , ru nki­
ness, virtuosity, and audacity that dam.:ers exhibited while thinking on Ih cir
feet.
"Discovered" by thc art establishment and the media in the ea rly IlJ80s ,
break dancing cxperienced a meteorie rise in visibility and a consequen l shin
in ,lhe kind ofsocial critique it could choreograph. 17 No longer a streeh :orner
performance, break dancing was staged in galleries, in popular film ::; SlIeh as
Flashdance, and on television , and its commercial viability was evenlually
recognized by the music video industry. Less a n occasion ror imprompl u
critical dialogue on the stage of Jife , break dancing nonetheless maintai ned
the powerful integrity of its negotiations alllong space, rhythlll, gravily, and
its intentextual refercnces to other dance forms, thereby providing cOlllpclli ng
visions 01' a reflexive physicality that contrasted with other lllainstreéllll fm ms
of dancing, such as ballet or aerobics. Allhough initiall y ma rgimllizcd by lile
lll ale-centered slrcet cu lt ures t hat SUp[1\llled break danci ng, women lIaneers
a mJ singers. alwa ys conlribut ors lo tlH! oll g()in g expcrimcn lalioll wilh lhe
!"onn , beg¡tn 111 ~h a re cente r ~;lugc wil )¡ 11 1:1 h' a l t ists when ru p ntllsk l110ved
inlO COII1 Ill!.' I·\." i;¡) illun..:, slIc h al' M 1v
1' \
 I , 11 ; N 1' 1' " '' ¡\ N i -, I 1I I I S h 1 ,l· I ' 111 lit 1 0 ( ; R ¡\ J' 1\ 11 ,!\ 1" r r; [ N 111 I(

lI y II "I II ~J MII III' 01 It.\.' S: II \l U CllP It.:l1t'la p hll ';I \'a h::gics J cvclopetl ill \:adi\:r Dance st udi~ as fClllillism's other
11!'c,;. II.. dall l:~ divl: \''iC VlH:a lJlllari \.'!-. 01" I11 11 ve 1l ll" 1I 1. ahrupl shifls ion rcfercnces.
This notion 01' choreography dilTers Illarkedly from standard treatments 01'
;J lul r lce: \I i(lUS n:lali(lllship lo grav ity Il~lII a lc ¡,,·tists elaborated a separate
dance as the elusive. cvcr-changing "mother ofthe arts. " The initiative within
/¡l.: 1 01' l'l1n n : rn :; rc v(ll vill g a ro l.llld Ihci r OWI1 sexual identity and pleasure ami
dance studies to approach dance as a historically specific cuJt ural practice
1hC11 pel spclll i vc o n urba l1 vio1cnce and J ecay. The continuities in dance sty1c
ra ther than an inerrable ce1ebration 01' a universal human condition has taken
1ha 1 lhey uult ivatcd alld the themalic \:oneern with the inner ei ty's decimation
place alongsidc and with the aid 01' feminist studies. Over the past twenty
sign aled lhcir solidarity with the masculineidentifled form, their sympathy
ycars, dance scholars have used the kinds 01' interpretive strategies imple­
wi l" Ihe plig hl 01" young A fro- A merican men, and Iheir distance I"ro m anti­
mentcd in fcminist theory to distance sex from gender as a way to denatural­
hlac k-m .dl.! ag\:lIdas . 'X !\ t Ihe same time, women a rtists choreographed a
ize the dancing body and historieize dance as a practice and profession. I
crilique ofscx isll1 wi lhin Ihe !\fro-American community in which they demoll­
review bridly some 01' the main points of intersection between feminist and
slra ll.!U virtuoso conlrol o ver their own bodies and p1easures. A:s exemplified
dance studies in order to c1arify further th e kinus of c1aims 1 wan t to make for
in videos by lhe group TLC, choreography anu camera work coordinate to
choreography.
c rca l\: a eomplex inleraction betwecn pcrformcr and viewer. 19 In works sLlch
The pertinence 01' feminism to dance studies has long been apparent.
as (¡'('cj!. R ed Nigh¡ Specia/, and Water/á/l.\' , the dancers repeatedly invite lhe
The professions 01' both dancc and dance scholarship are made up almost
ca mera and, implicitly, the viewer toward them. gesturing the body's sensu­
entirely ofwomen. Dance, the object ofstudy, is feminized within our society.
ality and desire. Masterfully. t hey rebuff. refocus, and reorient the gaze so as
The dancing body is aligncd with and central among a whole host of entities
to control access to intimacy. Standing firm, they mock the objeetification
silllilarly deflned as feminíne : it is most often construed as natural, auth­
of the female body. Slipping deftly out from L1nder the gazc's scrutiny. they
en tic, spontaneous, rervcnt, chaotic, and evanescent. Whcthcr primordial or
illlllllin a te pathwa ys 01' desire whose directionality and acccssibility they
decorous, it is always insubstantiaI. At the same time. gendered divisions of
have erafted, By choreographing such a complex relationship to the gaze,
labor exist within the discipline such that producers and artistic directors are
these women arti~ls embody the tense dynamism of their identities as Afro­
most 01'ten male and dancers are most often remale. Similarly, traditions 01'
!\meriean and feminist, as members 01' an oppressed and marginalized social
dance sllch as ballet, with its abslract, hierarchical structures, are conceptu­
grollp , a nd as leaders in an intern ational avant-garde popular aesthetic.
alized as more masculine than the feeling-filled, intuitive modern dance , a
As these examples illustrate, choreography, whether created by individuall
tradition founded and perpctuatcd largely by women. Lacking adequate
or collective agencies, illlprovised or designated in advance, stands apart
forms 01' documentation, dance has receivcd little historical recognition. The
I"rol11 any performance of it as the overarching score or plan that evidences a
enigmatic slipperiness 01' the dancing body has been seen by most historia ns
1hCl)ry 01' embodiment. This plan or fralllework 01' decisions that imp1cments
and aestheticians as incapab1e 01' the catcgorization and analysi s that would
" sd 0 1' representational strategies is what endures as that which is aug­
endow it with the status 01' a serious art or a meaningflll form of socialíty. 20
mc nll.~d. cnriched, or repressed in any given performance. Tt is that which
Where earlier generations of dance scholars emphasized just this ephemer­
t; kJIIges slowly over the multiple pcrformances. This kind of distinction
ality and unspeakable power , scholars in the 1970s and 1980s began to adapt
hc lwccn choreography and performance is not equivalent to that between
several kinds of methodologies to support their argument for a greater visib­
1(/l/glI(' and paro/e. Choreography is not a permanent, struetural capacity for
ilíty and legitimacy for dance in academic research. Although the fllll range
n:prescntation, but rather a slowly changing constellalion of representa­
of arguments against institutionalízed patriarchal values is pertinent to the
I iOllal conventions. Both choreography ami performancc change ovcr time;
subject 01' dance. 1 briefly outline two arcas of concern to both dance and
11.,11t select from and move into aetion certain semantic systems, and as sllch
feminist studies: the critique oflogoeentrism and the critique ofthe objectifled
Ihey derive their meaning from a specific histo rical and cultural moment. In
and sexualized status 01' women.
III\: case of eighteenth- and nineteenth-centllry ballet, choreographic specifica­
Using the expanded notíon oftext e1aborated in semiotics and in Derridean
tions 1'0\" gender roles incarnate the separatespherc redefinition of Pllblic
notions 01' writing, dance scholarship has hypothesized for dance the status
a nu private spaces; in Ihe case 01' break dancing, fcma1e choreographers
and capacities of a language-like system. It has recast dance as a cultural
llla bora te a highly nuanced identity for thclJlselves as !\fro-!\l11ericél ns and as
practice whose discursive function might be seen as distinct from yct com­
\\lo men th roug h th eir cra fling of bodies ami carne ras. In bolh cases. e h oreo­
parable to la ng uage: it has rec1assifled dance as a system of signs. 21 R ather
g raph y. \li Me lh a n an y P\!I r'1rmance, is wh ul rc~n na l cs wi lh o lbe!" syli lcll1S 0 1"
than insisl on lhe alterily 01' dance a~ cxcm plified in the premises 01' an écrilllre
rcprcSI.'II I¡¡ liOI1 Iha l Illg,'ll!c r C\l ll sl illl lC l ltí: c llllll r¡¡II\I "III ~'1l 1 wi thin wh ich a ll
j hllinilh', úa ncc schola rs hip haN Ilcshed out Ihe corrcspondenccs between
thlt/il;), ci rc lllall'

11.' I :.!.~
 111 I N'1' I '" V .\ N I.l I I I U ~ I I I
dillll!e IIml ":OIlV\! lltillll al ch:lllc llb ti!' Inl lfl" I!',C' Th cSl~ I",~sciln: h c; t r¡llcg ic:,
';lIliL'd wil h thCIIl ;1I1 Impl it.'iL c ritiq lle \Ird a nl:c as Icss sophisticalCu 01' COI1­
I-'l'p lll ally dClll umJi llg Ihall Ih e writt cn tex t, anu they lacitly challenged Ihc
hicla ll:hica l n:la liollships Orllli llll a.nd bndy, intclleclual and physical , w riting
alld dallci ng , r hey also provideJ a llew kind ofjustificalion for lhe projecl nf
wri ling abOl1l d unce: ir dance could be cOl1ceptualized as structured around
I:e rla in IUllguage-likc capacilies then the verbal analysis of this non verbal
I~ l rm wo ukl conslilu le more an acl 01' translatio n than (me 01' cOlTuptionY
As parl nI' this iniliative to asserl thc sill1ilarities between language anu
dallce, Ihe "olhering" 01' the nonverbal call1e un der intense scrutiny. Terll1 s
prcviollsly applied to dance, such as preverbal 01' preli/erale, lhe opposition
nI' Ihinking lo doing, an d Lh e divide between theory ami pra..:tice, cOllld
1I0W he challenged, T he rieh production of experience occurring daily in lhe
dam:c sllldio provided a crucial resource for understanding not only the
poslstructllralist c1aill1s concerning the inslability of the text ami the cultura l
conslrllctedness of the body but also the structllring of knowledge th at
dichotomies such as verbal and non verbal produce, Unlike art history anu
musicology, which have moved away from the creative production of arL
and music, dance studies remains d ose ly allied with the teaching of dancing
and dance mak ing, and in that alliance neither writer nor dancer can daim
lo be theorist or practitioner.
Ir dance studies profited from the efforts to decenter the preeminence of
the word , it likewise gained from the critique of women as sexualized objects,
Yvonne Rainer's manifestos from the early 1970s document the growing
unease with the dancing body as object of a sexualizing gaze, and her choreo­
graphy, a long with th at of colleagues Tricia Brown, Lucinda Childs, and
many others, added compelling urgency to the defiant efforts of twentieth­
century modern dance choreographers to detlect the masculine eroticizing
gaze. 24 With the elaboration of gaze theory in film studies, dance scholarship
began to identify corresponding constructions of desire in theatrical dance,
even if it did not adopt the larger psychoanalytic framework of such theory
beca use of the general orientation in psychoanalysis toward body as the site
of the unknowablc, 25
Although an extensive Iiteratllre has developed in feminist stlldies address­
ing the sexual status of the fema Je body , the body continues to be used as a
metaphor for the sexual or the erotic as if it could achieve no olher cultural
signifkance than as the site 01" sign 01' sexllahty. 2(i Alternatively, the body is
a nalyzed as the subject of medica l or scientific discourses that have inscribed
ir. In either ofthese approaches, the body endures as the mute container for,
or recipient 01', other signifying practices. Simila rl y. as Ja net Wolff has ob­
scrved, dance has scrvcd as the unexamincd ll1eta phM ro r ¡ l IIlopian potentia l
wilhin fe mi nist a!!\!ndal:i 0 1' :iexua llibera tion .1.7 D,IIl CC ~c rvc~ j<; a Illcla pho r for
rrccdom, t ru nsgrcssivc pllssíbilities, 01' lhc rCali/¡¡111l1l 01 scxu al plcas ure, yel
Ihe actu ul dallcc 1 ' '' ldin~~ !ha l woukl yicld I hl.'~~' 'l''ill !h ,If l' lIe ver J iSCllsscd.
I')h
n
HuI h da n c~ and da II I:C s tlldil'S. howe vcr. slall d as prouf nI' I he body 's capacily
lo ge nc ral\:', n:prcscnl. alld parlicipa l\: in I1IlIch more lhan sex ual desire. The
absencc 01' ua nce as a topie in fem inisl sludies amI 01' the lived body as more
Ihan sexual , more than a sign for sex, is a lacuna in l'eminiSl research that lhis
¡¡rtide is designed , in parl, to address,
In its applieation of poststrucluralist perspectives, dance studies, Ii ke fem­
inist sludies, has engaged in the balancing aet betweeJl assimiJation tnto
general semiotic and cultural theory and maintenanee of a distinctive
identity, 2~ On the one hand , dance seholars have aspired to legitil1late dance
through uel1lonstration 01' the applicabili ty 01' poststructuralist pa radigrns to
danee and through their facility at usin g such paradigms. On the o ther hand ,
the strategy of cl aiming for dance the stalus and complexity of a text obscures
aspecls 01' dance that are deeply resistant lo written descript ion, And will
such a project receive recognition from a community whose power resides in
the maintenance of boundaries that excl ude dance exeept as a eonvenient
l1letaphor for spontancity, frivolity , and the inexpressible?
Derrida's often-eited interview with Christie McDonald , ''Choreograph­
2Q
ies, " would seem to answer in the negative. The idea 01' lhe dance ll1akes
its appearance in both the title and McDonald 's opening move, where she
quotes Emma Goldman: " If I can ' t dance, I don't want to be part of your
revolution." Derrida, ever willing to probe the parameters of l1leaning set by
a metaphor, makes several references to dance that fall into two categories:
the flrst characterizing the inlerview process itself, the second in conjunclion
with the feminist movement. D errida hopes that the discussion with McDonald
will approximate a uance in that "it should happen only once, neither grow
heavy nor ever pl unge too deep; aboye all , it should not lag or trail beh ind its
time" (Derrida and McDo nald 1995, 141 - 42), In keeping with the spirit of
the dance, Derrida continues, his intervicw should "not Icave lime to come
baek to what is behind us, nor to look attentively " (142) , Although dance
initially musters only these shallow attributes , incapable as it is of "growing
hea vy or plunging deep" or " Iooking attentively," Derrida soon imbues it
with the capacity to "s urprise ." Thus, with a Illodest radicality , the dance
ean "escape those residences under s urveillance; the dance changes place
and aboye all changes place.\''' (145), This capacity 01' dance lo jump spryly
or wriggle out of the hands of immobilizing disciplinary praetices offers an
imagc 01' the kinu of disruptive, heterodox strategies that Derrida ueems
neeessary to subvert all monological discourses, Here, the dance is neither
"powerless nor fragile ," and it serves as a signitkr for lhe kind of agi1c,
contingent action that Derrida estima tes is necessary for the ongoing struggle
of feminist politics,
Having positioned himself as a eritic \Vho admires this kind of choreo­
graphy, Derrida d ismisses the dance for the bulk of t he discuss ion, return­
ing lo it. at McDonald 's pro m pting, al the end of the interview , W hereas
earlicr, dance eharacteri zed the a d hae laclics of resi sta nce to hegemonizing
I:U

prac ti...·l·S hCII" h'l lcograp hy SIII I I Il IIIII\ IIp tl ll' IItupian strllctllrin g or a place
bcyolll.t sl'\ua l dilt c n.:nce . T he u an ~, WIH)Se l!XistCllcC depcnds on the exchange
of thl.: twn sc'-a'!s aCl.:ording to various rhythms, abo signals the possibility 01'
cscarmg 1'10111 that cxchange. The "incalculable choreographies" of which
hu mans a re capable, those tha t "carry, divide, and multiply the body oreach
ind ividual ," could m ove LIS to a pl ace where sex ual and gendered markers
no longer make a difference: "Then too, I ask yo u, what kind of a dance
wo uld there be, or would there be one at all , if the sexes were not exchanged
according to rhythms that vary considera bly? In a quite rigorolls sense,
the e.ychange alone co uld no t suffke either, ho wever. beca use the desire to
escape the com binatory itsclf, to invent incalculable choreographies, would
remain " (154). Derrida stages a deliriou s fantasy in which the problem of
sexual d iffeTcnce evaporates (fleeting as dance itself). But in this dream he
uses dance both to seeure the inevitability of sexual exchange, fundamentally
hete rosex ual, and to siplal the desire to escape beyond slIch exch a nge, pos­
sibly polysexual.
Al though dance's epiphanic evanescen ce seems initial1y to encompass this
contradiction , once its d a.zzle begins to fade , two choreographic features of
Derriua's argument emerge. The first centers on his failure to discuss what
kinds of choreography might catapult us from heterosexual to polysexual.
T his transformation , a kind 01' singular jump or leap , has no choreographic
substance. It merely hap pens in the blink 01' an eye , as quickly as the dance
changes places. These two places, essential heterosexuality and deconstructed
polysexuality, reproduce the essentialist!antiessentialist debate that de Lauretis
is contesting. Although Derrida mentions the laborious, daily struggle 01'
fcminism, he docs not consider the choreographic elements of that struggle,
beca use it is only the dance's " madness" that allows it to change places (145).
('onsequently , feminist politics can only oscil1ate between the essentials of
hiological , sexual identity and the mad leaps that might position women
l\1olllcntarily in a dilTerent place. And reminist analysis can only attend to the
Ilvcrwhdmin g complexities 01' deconstructing a given historical specificity,
with liltle energy left over for devisin g strategies 01' mobilization.
This nonchoreographic conception 01' dance and its effect on the subjeets
ur 1'l'lllinism and sexuality eonstitute tbe second major feature of Derrida's
inlerview , and his superficial treatment of dance provokcs a number of
l\uestion s: Is it the feminine subject of feminist studies that inspires the
llIetaphor 01' dance? Is this él subject that deserves only a gliding glance'? M ust
the terrifying trio 01' dance , the reminine, and the sexual repeat endlessly its
Illad, transient, and unanal yzab\e performance? Are the th rec members of
Ihis trio destined onl)' to re iry and reduce one an o ther ra ther than expand
Iheir individu al and mu tual identi ties?
111 he r hook Tal/g(l Olll/ tI/(' Pol/tica! F U !/Iol//I ' o! " ,/\,sioll (1 995 ), Ma rta
Savig liallll ch orcngra phs:l n a llerna livl.! lo Ihe (lprl lSifi"" ht!wcell Cliscn lialist
idenli ly nnd ~k~l)I I ~lr\l~ li lltl (lO C in which d :J\ln: ~¡' I v~' ... 11" hnt h suhjccl ,I I1U
t 'x
i IICHU OOHAPIII I', S 0 1' (il INIW I{
interp rctivc rra ll1cwo rk rOl' dam;e's relationship to cultural theory. To the trio
dance-rernilllne-sexuality, she adds the critical perspectives of post-colonial
politics, global economics, racial and class-based markers ofidentity, and Ihe
autoexotic return 01' la ngo to the emerging nation of A rgentina fol1owing its
glamorous appearance on the f1rst-world stage of early twentieth-century
Europe. Savigliano stages earl y tangos among the oppressed black populations
01' the Rio de la Plata , whcre the dance's eroticisrn seandalized the daneers'
masters at the same time that it pron o unced their distinctive identity. She
ana lyzes its characteristic embrace as a sign of the ongoing yet impossible
attempt to suture racial and c1ass divides in an ethnically diverse, urban and
rural colony. The co mpl exily of these divides is registered in the rclation of
dance to music and Iyrics, in the division of labor between upper body and
lower body , and in the complicated gendcr roJes elahorated for male and
female dancers. Throughout the dance, partners' torsos align and move in
unison and thcir faces remain impassi ve, yet their hips, legs, a nd feet enact
intricate scenarios ofseduction and conquest , aggression a nd resislance. The
male dancer, although ostensibly in control , is compromised in his author­
ity amI status by hjs dass origins; the female dancer, while she follows hi s
lead , leads with her bravado fatality. The choreogra phy for his role develops
his persona as a "cruel. even violent ruffian , but he is sensual , loving, and
coquettish, although exploitative and courageous, even when economic,L1ly
and emotionally dependent" (Savigliano 1996, 2(6). He.. choreography makes
manifest "an astute and merci\ess broad , ambitious and potenli a ll y treacher­
ous but submissive and condemncd" (206). In elaborating these kinds 01'
gendered roles for the dancers , Savigliano deploys precisely the notion of
identity argued for by de Lauretis. Not natural. yet enduring, the attributes
01' these dancin g bodies and their affinities with certain economic and political
circumstances fashion identities whose claims to authority are based no! on
biological but on historical experience.
As part 01' her analysis 01' tango , Savigliano also condu~ts an anatomy
of the dance scholar' s di1cmm a, compounding it with the perspective of the
third-world woman of color: how lo borrow what is useful from first-world ,
male , poststructuralist theory and at the same time avoid colonization by
that theory , thereby preserving an integrity and uniqueness for third-world ,
reminized dance. Sa vigliano's solution places the t\Vo diseourses , onc written,
Ihe other danced , in a fatal embrace and asks them to tango . This "dance ,"
unable to be vicwed voyeuristically, is gratifying to read because it fOl.:uses on
the tango , providing a wealth of historical and cultural information about it,
but it also shows the tango as capable of suggesting a new model for research
across boundaries 01' gender, nation , and race . It thereby empowers dance as
bOlh a su bjcct éllld a theoretical stratcgy 01' general u~c within cultural theo ry.
Its variely o i' c ho reographic 1ll0VCS , lt nlikt! Derrida 's single Icap, offers sub­
stan tive slratcgics ror analyzillg OI llll ~' I\lll\'(lgrar h il1 g responses to genucr
nppl'l'ssi nn.
I "1
 I O I¡ N 'I' , ' I'Y ANn 1 11 1: SII I 1
Hlurrin,:t W·nl"l·...
As early as 19HO. <lnl hropologi sl ('Iillord (jcCIII Il'lllarked on the growing
tendency within lhc social sciem:es lo borrow Illdaphors rrom outside their
disciplines in order lo derive ncw interpretive rrameworks for the study of
human behavior. 111 (jccrlz identified three major ncw metaphors - the stage
and its dram as, Ihe ga rnc alld its players, and tbe text and its intertextualities
---- that \Ve re conslrllcting !lew sites 01' research . Geertz senses the shaking 01'
cpistemic fou odalio ns lhal such borrowing causes and anticipates the ex­
lcnsive deba tes that will reslIll rrom the shifting of paradigms. What Geertz
does not address is lhe kil1 u 01' disciplinary chagrin felt by scholars in theater
sI lidies or ph ysical cd uca lio n as key aspects 01' a topic they ha ve long contem­
plated are taken up in ot her liclds. al'ten more prestigious than their own."
SlIch a borrowing, the second rmm thealer arts, is currently in progress \Vith
lile use of the term peflormal/ce, and ils intoxicating results have proliferated
throughout cultural and gender studics . t\gain , in order to retIne the notion
nI' lhe chorcographic, 1 want to rcview sorne of the uses of the term peljórll1­
111/("(' in theater amI thea ler sludies and examine their attendant meanings.
The term performance has garnered much 01' its critical cachet from two
important initiatives within thcatcr sludics. The first , developing in tandem
wilh poststructuralist analyses of thc text, recognized the power of any given
production to alter the meaning of the play's script through the interpretive
decisions made about staging, setting, and action. Traditional theater studies
rocused on the written text of the play, treating it as a stable origin of mean­
ing, often at the expense of analyzing thc impaet 01' Iive bodies engaged in
actions that might augment or contradict spoken text in ways that pro­
roundly influence the production 's meaning. 32 The shift within theater studies
I() a study 01' the enactment or performance of a given script served as an
antidote to exclusively text-based analyses, and it also responded to the
growing apprehension of the exclusionary politics of text-based analyses.
Perfolmance both broadened the subject of analysis and challenged the
privilege of access to the text.
Thc second initiative responds directly to the radical opening up 01'
Ihcatrical performancc in the 19605 and 1970s to include unconventional prc­
scntations such as those of Alan Kaprow, the Living Theater, and many othcr
grollps whose improvised bricolage of various mediums undermined the
centrality of the script as the principal organizing force of the performance.
Such performances, often one-time events, incorporated task-oriented and
other pedestrian-based behavior so as to challenge prevailing values eoncern­
ing the kinds 01' activities that are appropriate for theatrical presentation . The
use of the term per/(mllll/1('(', a necessary c ril ical in lcrv\!n li n l1 illto the hcge­
mony DI' lcxl-bil"éd slud iéS, thu s chall1pi oned lllé ca radt y oJ" b odi é.~ lo signify
th rOll gh aclion al I h~' <¡"n ll' lil1K' Ihm il valida k'd \:!\Pc lÍlllc lllal slnrkgies 01'
cxlcnd ing 1111.':111 il'al v:1I11\' lo Ihe widesl ral1!',~'1I1 I1dl;I\l II '11
I lO
i . 1" JI( l' () ( i I( ¡\ l' " " S () F (i 1: N I H: 1(
SlIbsCqUC1I1 t!x pnill1cnlation at the margins 01' art and theater, loosely
lahcled perjiml/(/I/ce (lrl ami perjórl11ol1ce, extendcd the intcrrogation of
houndarics betwcen art and life and continued to subvert hierarchies of text
ami action . Performances gcncrated out of a disciplinary orientation in art
challenged the complieity of thc art object in museum ami gallery schema of
economic profitability. Their attempts to dematerialize the art object em­
phasized the process 01' art making as opposcd to the resulting object that is
availablc for colle.ction and display. D Performances generated out oftraining
in theatcr crossed boundaries to cabaret, storytelling, and activist demonstra­
tion. Conceptualized as an alternativc to mainstream thcater productions,
this ecleetic array 01' events cllrrently escapes any cohesive structural features
and can be defined as such by the alternative venue in which the perfomlance
takes place, by the autobiographieal and highly personal nature 01' the ma­
terial presented, or by the heterodox mixture of speech, action, sound. and
citation that the performance consolidates.
As elaborated in artistic and scholarly practices, performance challcnges
the stability of thc script and invites consideration of non-script-orientcd
events whose importance was previously denied. The vcry term invokes a
critique of author and text as original and motivating identities. Performance
also draws together an eclectic array of events whose juxtaposition promises
to yield important insights into cultural expression and individual and social
identities. Thus, performance has been used to eondllct a critique oflogocentric
values from two directions: phenomenological investigations of perfonnance
as a disappearance act and psychoanalytic interrogations 01' the reconstruc­
tion 01' performance as memory have reeharted the territory between event
as experience and event as object of study.34 Ethnographic encollnters \Vith
heterodox and hybrid varieties 01' performance have challenged thc hierar­
chical and exclusionary strllctures that had ordained distinctions between
popular and elite or universal and ethnically specific. Because of the critical
need to examine the role of such structures in the production of knowledge.
both psychoanalytic and ethnographic approachcs havc emphasized deonto­
logization and inclusion over analysis 01' the social and political significanee
01' events under investigation. They have focused more 011 how such events
lInravel the cpistemic coherence of earlicr conceptions of theatcr than on the
new convenlions of representation that these performances establish.
Both psychoanalytic and ethnographic approaches to performance ana­
Iysis have also tended to revolve around the individual in the act of perform­
ing and the individllatcd experienee of performance, rather than to engage
with systerns 01' representation that viewer and performer share. Psyehoana­
Iytic fral11cworks. in their focus on the lack , loss, or absence of performance,
run the risk 01' indulging in thc ephemerality of the performance without
providing a n opporlunity to sl.:rutini /e Ihe systcllls of representation invokcd
hy Ihe pc rrnrl11u ncc. T he necd Itl n:COII ~lrllcl the performa nce in individual
rnelJl Oly Ill uttcrs morc Ihall i l s IIlOlIll:lI lll ly ahility Lo rcdeflllc, individllally
l .; 1
 I I' E N 1'1 1')' A N I) 1' 111 SI ' I l '
and collectivcly, the identitics 01' those wllo partidpatcd as ¡x:rformcrs and
viewers. Ethnographic frameworks , in their attempt to negotiate the difTer­
ence between ethnographer and ethnographic site, exam ine the individua!'s
encounter with difference, sometimes at the expense 01' summoning up the
sociality of that difference. The investigator, as soloist, stand s in for the role
of any viewer in response to the performance, channeling that response toward
individuated forms of reaction and away from collective rubrics that produce
and sustain meaning, a\Vay from an examination 01' the structures of power
inherent in the ethnographic encounter. Performance, as a genre of theatrical
presentation , complements this emphasis on individual identity because 01'
the sheer number of solo artists whose autobiographical musings cultivate
the resonances between ind ividual sty1e and cultural motif.
Before the advent of performance and performance studies, the dramatic
text was typically conceived as signifier for the system 01' shared values that
gave a theatrical production its meaning. lts use 01' language (not the theatr­
ical conventions implemented in its staging) was seen as evidence of a socially
shared meaning system. Performance studies' efforts to rupture the hier­
archies of permanent text and ephemeral action implicit in this canonical
conception of text have been crucial to our understandings of theater and of
the social as theater. However, the function of this new conception of " text"
--- as an unstab1e, nonoriginary, historically specific orchestration of per­
forrned sociality - has yet to be theorized. 35 That is to say , what still needs to
be examined is performance's ehoreography.
Choreographing gender
The emphasis on the individual as elaborated thus far in performance
and performance studies influences in subtle yet crucial ways the role that
performance plays in the c1aim for gender as performance. Performance
emphasizes the transformative moment when the individual instantiates
prescribed, prearranged patterns of movement, speeeh , or display. Gender as
performance focuses on the unmasking of these "natural" patterns as culture,
or on the compulsory execution of these patterns. Analysi s of the seo re 01'
script to be executed matters less than the individual 's adaptation of those
scripts. This suppression of the script for the performance leads to models of
social change based primarily on individual insubordination 01' transgres­
sion. !\ny body, discontented \Vith the regimen 01' behaviors assigned to it.
can alter its partieipation in the regimen but can hardly effect serious change
in the content 01' the regimen itself. furthermore , the focus on individual
execution or enactment ca n deflect inq uiry away from the historical and
cultural specificitics ofthe pe rfo rmance . G cnde r is hcing r crfo rmed , hut wha t
is gendc r lhat it is bei ng pc rlú rmed?
Ir pe rfo rma nce as assilll ila lcu in l o c uhural"l lld lC"i somc li mcs p urs ul1S lhc
indi vidllal al Ihe CXpC II Sl 111' Ihe soda l, il a lsll I'Ih'ap~,IIJ;¡ll'" ;I n ullcxal1l ined
1J2
l ' IHHU'()lil( ¡\ J' IIII ': S ()I' li I.N I)J . I(
app ro priatioll ¡,I' Ihe physical (read IÓllininc) by the textual (read masculine).
Bot1-l the corporcal and the femininc , as I have tried to show, share attributes
01' instability, ephcmcrality, and unknowability, whereas the textual. even in
its deconstrueted versions, maintains a solidity and rationality that aligns
with the masculine. The vast majority of studies implementing the notion 01'
performance have focused on written representations of gender rather than
the orchestrated actions of Illoving yet nonspeaking bodies. They neglect the
body and at the same time use body to infleet textuality with a new vitality .
This enlivenment of language through a demonstration 01' its performative
capabilities continues to rely on traditional notions 01' the text's solidity as
eontrasted with the less stable moment of its performance.1Ó The choreo­
graphic dimensions 01' the perfofmative act - the text's capacity to body
forth a theoretical and political orientation - remain buried in the text,
property 01' the Iinguistic order and its engagement with the social. Since
the c1aim for gender as performance devc10ps out of Austin 's linguistie
studies rather than theater research, this lack of attention to repertoires of
behavior other than those orthe text should come as no surprise. However, the
perpetuation 01' verbal and nonverbal oppositionality implicit in the perform­
ative text limits the analysis 01' gender and may even perpetuate traditional
gender inequalities.
Choreography challenges the dichotomization of verbal and non verbal
cultural practices by asserting the thought-filledness or movement and the
theoretical potential 01' bodily action. It names the necessarily coIlective
practiee of en gagement with enduring yet historically specific con ventions of
representation and emphasizes the connections that such conventions have
to social and political structurings of power:17 New conceptualizations 01'
the script, developed in the wake of poststructuralist critiques 01' author and
text , likewise summon up this theorization of human action , yet the legac)' or
the dramatic text continues to infuse the script with a kind or permanence,
whereas the notion of choreography as a theoretical premise underscores the
changcability or events and their environs . '~ Choreography also disrupts the
traditional divisions of labor between verbal and non verbal acts by fusing
the experiential and " feminine " cultivation 01' bodily presence to the intellec­
tual and " masculine" analysis of representation.
To approach gender as choreography also suggests a potential bridge be­
tween academ ic and activist spheres of engagement with gender operations.
It is precisely through a choreographic assessment of bodies, their behavior,
and their location that col1ective interventions such as "Take Back the Night,"
"Confront the Rapist at the Worksite. " " Same-Sex Kiss-Ins," or "Guerrilla
Girls at the Whitney Museum" acquire their perspicacity and charisma. 1~
T1H:se theoriled res ponses to choreographies of gender and power illustrate
an o ngo ing en¡.!agement wilh syslems 01' rcprcsentation a nd an ability to
rcstra teg i z~ as [lowe r al k rs lhe form n f ll s ap pca rance. Bccause oftheir ca nny
alla lysls ul' hud y plllilics, Ilrcs ~ resl'0I1Sl.'!'\ also 1Il0VC uct ivist anu scholarly
1 ' l~
 III I:N 1 1', \ .•\ N I! ' 111 11 NI ' . I
rca 1111 S nI t i! lIIilll ~rtI 1I lwlI rd "II ~ ;[11011 1('1 I I!"M 1'11111," 1 cl il lln :s:' .. nd lIollhe
slIdJe ll I.)crriJC:l 11 Icap lo a J ilTc lcl1l p lm:c, ¡IIL wlni! 1I11 1' hl ca rry liS !"mm Ihe
hetcrose.'wal lowa ru Ihe pol yscx lIal 01. II lt ll !.! im t"OJ la lll. ;¡cross Ihe J iviJes
that separate dilTerenl !"eminisl agenJas: IO Wil h Dl.!rriJa's leaping dancer.
critical ditTerenees bctwecn raei<llly and scxually inllcetcd genJer Jilferenees
blur as deeonstruetion eatapults all constituencies into utopian impartiality.
This presumption 01' the similarity 01' all differenees risks the same kinJ 01'
transcendental gesture that dcconstruction was mobilizcJ to J.ismantle. Nor
does Derrida's dance providc the opportunity to theorize the dynamic inter­
relations among sexual , racial. and national conflgurations 01' identity.
Body, as Susan Bordo has observed, should serve as a metaphor for the
subject's loeatability. for thefinitude of experienee rather than for its evan­
eseence or universality: "For the appreciation of difference requires the
al:knowledgement 01' sorne point beyond whidl the danl:er eannot go. Ir
she were able to go everywhere, there would he no difference, nothing that
eludes. Denial 01' the unity and stability of identity is one thing. The epistem­
ologil:al fantasy of hecoming multiplicity - the dream of Iimitless m ultiplc
embodiments, allowing one to dance from p)al:e to place and self to self - is
another. What sort ofbody is it that is free to change its shape and location al
will, that can become anyone and travcl anywhere?" (1993, 228- 29) . Neither
in performance nor in choreography is the body "free" to change its shape
and location, although , as I have argued here, the performing body , especi­
ally as that extension of the textual body that simply moves the text into
action , might well appear as unlimited. In fact , performance places important
and obvious strictures on the body's whereabouts, since a body can perform
only in a given time and place. Yet, it is the choreography this body performs
that articulates its connectedness to a specific surround.
Located yet connected, the choreographed body not only suggests an
alterna tive to theory versus practice, it also undermines the oppositionality
between essential and deconstructcd versions of genJered identity. To analyze
gender as choreography is to acknowledge as systems 01' representation the
deeply embedded, slowly changing rules that guide our actions and th at
make those actions meaningf~11. Not biologically I1xed but rather historically
specific, these rules are redolent with social, political , economic, and aesthetic
values. They impart to any body a spccificity that must be acknowlcdgcd,
yet they also connect that body to other cultural orchestrations of identity.
To choreograph a change in these rules is to grapple with the intensely
routinized patterns they have produced, but also with the rules themsel ves,
their configuration and dynamism, and the alliances they create \Vith other
structurings ofpower. Such a change may be registered by a single body. bul
its choreographic cal! to a ction will reReet a theori¿alion 01' :locial as well as
indi vid ual bOlJies,
In this cho rcographic respOllse to [be chon,:o!, ra phks n I' ,Tt,:IHkr. bou ics a no.:
holh acl ive alld t"I.;¡¡¡;l ivc. ~ ~ncnI Live a nJ r(,'spollNIW 'H llill /" and wrillcn.
111
IC' 11I l){ 1 (1 \ , I( t\ Pi 11 r.'\ 111 ' 1; f N nT[(
I'II\;i, aCliolls ;11 1.: lIClI all 11llll1cJ iakd alllhelltic ¡;x preSSil)Jl, nor are Ihey ollly
Ihe SlIllllltali u ll o /"a lllhc di sc ursivc pracliccs lhat wnlaill anJ objectify thelll.
( 'horeography rclies (l1l lhe inclllcatcJ capabilities, impulses, and preferences
Ihal yc;.¡rs 01' practice produce. bul it also leaves open the possibility for the
IInprccedcnled, Bodies change the world through their persistent adherence
10 roulinized action, but also by congregating precipitously, stllmbling, duck­
ing, or striking a balance; by stretching or imposturing; by standing defiantly
or running dcviantly; or by grasping others' hands. These thought-filJed
actions defy strategies of containment and move us toward new theorizations
01' corporeal existence and resistance. Could this be the dancing that Emma
(,oldman had in mind?
Notes
See, e.g .. the 1"0lIowing incidental references to Butler and to gender as perform­
ance. Chosen randomly , they suggest the wide impact of the notion of gender as
pcrformance on cultural studies generally: Burshatin 1992,578; MacDonald 1993,
123; Senelick 1992, xi; I-Iernmings 1993; Rabinowitz 1995. 102; Robson and Zalcock
1995, 185- 86: Apter 1996, 15·-34, esp. 27; Duncan 1996, 5; Kent 1996, 191.
2 For Butler's diseussion of interpellation and its relation to Althusser, see Butler
1993.
J Butler also makes this point in "Performative Acts and Gender COllstitution: AJl
Essay in Phenomcnology and Fcminist Theory" (1990, 271).
4 See Ruyter 1979; Kendall 1984; Daly 1996; and Tomko. in press ,
5 See Kriegsman 1981; and also Tomko, in press.
(, I have elaborated on this argurnent in Foster 1992.
7 The kinds ofrnovelllent qualities. spacing. and timings 1 descri be herc are mea nt to
be suggcstive of categories of movelllent analysis rathcr tha n as systernatic o r
exhaustive lists of g~ndered characteristics. They take inspiration from but do not
c\aim the kind of comprehensiveness argued for by the carly twentieth-century
lllovcrnent theorist Rudolph Laban. A description 01' his system for anal yzing
gendered movement can be found in Bartinieff 1980, 58- 59 and 92- 93 . An alternat­
ive and very thoughtful systcmatization of gcnder in relation to movement styles IS
providcd in Young 1990.
X Jane Gallop's marvelous leetures in the mid-1980s in which she lay on atable and
"served hcrself tlp" to the audienee make c\ear the kinds of choreographic expec­
tatiolJs th il t lectures typil:ally enforce.
1) The following surnmary of changesin gcnder roles across the eighteenth and ea rly
nineteenth centuries compresses the argument Illlake in Foster 1996. Please con­
sult that history for a rnuch fuller aceount of the'se changes.
1() For a full description of Ihe kinds of changes in postural pedagogy and the
changing role 01' the corset. see Vigarello 1977, 1978.
11 See Jordanova 1989.
l .'. As critic for ¡he Vil/age Voicl'. Sally Banes brought break-dancers' accomplishments
lo the altcntion 01' a wider and whiter audience as early as 1981. See Banes 1981.
1\ I'ricia Rose"s book on rap and hip-hop traditions presents an eloquent analysis 01"
1\](' rol!: oftcchnology in rap music and also idcntifies powerful reSonances alllong
dance, visu ." art, and music I'crsions 01' hip hop that 1 do not address here, For a
rllllt.:r tlllCh: rsta ndi ng nf the dancin¡ ~ in rdation to other arts anJ teehnology, see
l{\ l S~' 11)')4.
! :h
 I DIl NT I' I' \, AN U 1111 '1 111 . 1
14 Rose 19(14, .\(1. Ros\: Ireab hr\,!i1 k daIlCllI g. ;1 "mil"': II mll IIIal el1lel' g~ d in Ihe lak
1970s, as par! l)"the more gcneral aeslhe li.: S" \ ' .:;¡lIs IlIp ""P,
15 See Novack 1990 ror a discussion 01' illlprovisalioll in I'elation to contacl
improvisatioll.
16 For a lucid analysis 01' Afro-American tradilions 01' musical impro visation , see
Lewis 1996.
17 Ranes tracked the developmenl of brcak dancing across Ihis crucial period 01' ils
assimil at ion into mainstream culture, noting pen.:eptive!y Ihc changes in choreo­
graphic style broughl aboul by increased visibility . See Banes 1994, 121 -..58.
18 See Rose 1994, 178.
19 The three members nI' Ihe group TLC are T-Boz , Left-eyc , and Chilli.
20 For a discussion 01' Ihe absence 01' dance in Ihe history of aesthetics, see Sparshott
1988.
21 See Foster 1986; Adshead 1988; Novack 1990; Ness 1992; F ranko 1993; and
Martin 1996,
22 See Kacppler 1972; ami Williams 1977.
23 1 am not claiming that Ihe Iranslalion is free 01' corruption, but merely Ihal Ihe
project oflranslation attempts to move tcxl from one discursive system to another,
whcreas prior conccptions of dance presumed Ihe impossibility of Ihis move.
24 See Rai,ncr 1974.
25 See Dal y 1987, 1996; Albr,i ght 1990; Desmond 1991; Adair 1992; and Manning
1993. For an incisive review of the dance lilcraturc that applies gaze Iheory, see
Thomas 1996.
26 Buller occasionally elides body with sexuali ty in such a way as lo call into qllestion
her exacl conceplion 01' corporeality. E.g., she claims , "The loss of control that in
Ihe infant characlerizes lIndevelopcd motor control persists within the adlllt a s
Ihal cxccssive domain 01' sexuality Ih a t is stilled "nd deferred Ihrough the invoca­
tion of the 'ego-idea\' as a ccn ter 01' control " (1993, 261-62).
27 See Wolff 1995. Wolff cites several examples of Ihe uncrilical use of dance in
feminist argumenls, and she calls for the kind offocus on choreography Ihat 1 am
presenting here.
28 The difficlllties 01' using deconstruclion and postslructuralist theories in such a
way Ihat they oblilerate differenee occause Ihey are fundamenlally indiffcrent to it
are eloquently discussed in Schor 1989.
29 In her chapler, interestingly titled "Dreaming, Dancing, and Ihe Changing Loca­
tiolls of Feminisl Criticism, 1988," Nancy K. M iller (1991) has already undertaken
a critical analysis of Derrida's text , and rny revisilation ofhis inlerview can be seen
as a eomplemenl lo her remarks as \Vell as 'In attempl to rccupcrale Ihe notion of
choreography,
30 See Gee rtz 1980. Geertz \Vas one of the firsl lo note the disciplinary borrowing
and blurring that \Vas enabling new Iheorizatiolls of cullurc lo occur. Yet , il1
" Deep Play: Notes on a Balinese Cockfight" (1973), Geertz demonstrates precisely
how this untutored borrowing ean reinscribe the very values one is trying to gain
perspective on. Geertz and his wife rush headlong with Ihe cro\Vd gathered to
watch Ihe cockfight and away from Ihe poliee raid. Their run down the street is
unpremeditated and res,pond s ",ti a gul leve\" with immediacy and allthenlici ty to
the kinesthetic explosiveness of Ihe group. As a result, Ihey are laken in and mad e
honorary natives. The founding momenl of Iheir a ssimilatian into Ihe group is
based on a visceral. corporeal empalhy Ihal lies hcnea !h cultural difTcrcncc.
31 Do lan 1( 1)3 cla bO l'ales the political e Q n ~cqll cncé s 01' slIc h h' II'1'Owi ll g.
32 Por él lucid accounl orthe roh:: al' th \! tex! in Ihcal \!r Sl lldi,'s , ~cc Worlhe n 1995.
33 See Lipp;1I'l1 11)71 1'111' ;111 aCl'lIl1l1t 111' tlu:sl) CX I'CI i1l1\:111',
, :\/1
q 11111( 1 (1 ( oIt ¡\ l' 11 11 S fl l' (: 1, N 1I1 d<
-\4 I'cggy l'he l;lIl h;l', lkvcl nred (1110 uf' tho m \lsl s,'phislicatcd and complex delinea­
I inlls pI' Ihi s lurn lory ill Ulllllurkcc! (1 1)94).
35 J oscp h I{o uch 's olltstanding \York 011 circum-Atlantic performance exelllplifies the
radical llverhauling of history Ihat thc l"ocLlS on performallce can yield. Roach
examincs thc eirclllatioll ofinlluences alllong Europe, Al"rica, and the Ne\v World
so as to illurninatc the workings of racial prejudiee Hlld colonization in a wide
varicty of pcrformance contcxts. Performance allows him to assess the impact of
non-text-based events an_d traditions so as to show mutual influeuces among Ihe
thrcc regions. I-Iowever, Roach's notion 01' slIrrogation, a way of Iheorizing the
pcrpelualion of scores over time, focuses on Ihe filling ofthe role by the new body,
more than on the ehoreographic moves stipulated by Ihe score Ihat Ihose bodies
Ihen ll1ake. See Roach 1996.
3ú SlIc-ElIen Case (1995) has pointed lO Ihe prejudices entailed in Ihe foclls on the
textual in sludies of performativity.
37 Kati e King arglles in support of Ihis notion of choreography as Iheory when she
descrihcs "the wholc of Ihe Illany forll1 s theori zing takes: acting, Ihinking, speak­
ing, conversalion, aclion grounded in (hco ry , aetion producing theory, action
suggesting theory, drafts, lellers, unpublishcd manuscripts, stories in writ ing and
not, poell1s said and wrillen , élrt events like shows, readings, enaclmenls, zap
aclions such as ACT UP does" (1990, 89).
38 This notion of choreography shares much \Vith Elizahelh Grosz's notion of sig­
nature. See Gros? 1995 , 21 - 23.
39 For a lucid account of the cultural work performed by Queer Nation ' s kiss- ins in
shopping malls, see Berlanl and Freeman 1993.
40 Miller 1991 warns that Ihe utopian vision of polysexuaJi ty can mask crucial
struggles among different feminist groups_ I agrcc and see the pOlenlial for choreo­
graphy to negotiatc somc of those differcnces.
References
Adair, Christie. 1992. Women {/nd D(/nci': Sy/phs alld Siri'ns. London : Macmillan .
Adshead , Janel, ed.1988. Donee AIZII/p·i.\': Thcory (/nd Praclice . LOlldon: Dance
Books,
A"lbright, Ann Cooper. 1990. " Mining the Dance Field: Spectacle, Moving Suhjccts
and Feminist Theory ." CO/1WCl Qua"'er/y 15 (Spring/Surnmer): 32- 41 .
Apler, Emily. 1996, " Acling oul Orientalism. " In PClfOrl11l1l1C(' ol1d Cu//Ura/ PO/illcs,
ed. Elin Diamond, 15- 34. New York and London: ROlllledge.
Austin, J. L. 1962. H(}\v lO Do Things lVi//¡ Words. Cambrldge, Mass.: Han'ard Uni­
versity Press.
Banes, Sally. 1981. "Breaking Is Hard to Oo." Vil/age Voiee, April 22- 28,68.
- , 1994. Wrilillg Dllncing i/1 Ihe Agc o/ Posl/1/odemism. 1"mover, N.IL and
London: Wcsley a n University Press and University Press ofNe w England.
BaniniefL Irmgard. 1980. 8()(/)' MOl'emenl, Copil/g lI'ilh Ihc Envirol1l1'/el1l . New York:
Gllrdol1 & I3rcach .
Ikrlant , I.auren . and Eli zabelh Freeman. 1993. "QlIeer Nationality ." In Fm/' o( (/
{)¡{(,c/' P/{/I/el: Q/lc(,/, Po/ilies und Socia/ Thco/'y, ed, M ichael War,ner, 193·-229.
Minllca poli;; and Ll\lldon: lJni versit y 01' M innesota Press.
I h ll'~llI . Susan o 1993, Ullh('(/wf¡{e Wl'ig /II . Bcrke ley and Los Angeles: Un iversily 01'
'al il úrllla Pr~'ss .
1'\1

BlII'sllat ill , bl ad 1(111) Jl la yl1l )' t 11(' !'vIlH )t JI, II 'ld~ ,IIH I I', 11111 111.11I\.'\.' ill I , "I ~ (h; Vq.\;¡ \
'El primer 1:;li,lIdo,'" IIl 'S pl.·l,; i;d I (ll'll': Jll' rI ,I I III.II IH' . \', 1. Killlktly Ik llstoll ,
speeial issue 01" l' M LA 107(3): SN, ¡.; 1,
Butler, Judith. 1990a. (¡CI/(Iel' 'f'rol/h!c, 1',",l/il/i.1'I1I (///(111/,· SI/¡'I'('/'.I'ioll (Ir 1"('IUi'.I'. Ncw
York an o Lo ndon: Routledge.
- -o 1990b. " Performative Acts ami Gender Constitution: /\n Essay in Phenomeno­
logy and Feminist Theory.'· In PeljimlJing Feminism.\', ed, Sue-Ellen Case, 270- 82.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Ulliversity Press,
- -o1993. Boclies TI/(/I Mal/er: 0/1 Ihe Dis('ul'sive Limil,l' r~r "Sex , " N ew York and
London: Routledge.
Case, Sue- E llen. 1995. "Performing Lesbiall in the Spaee of Techllology. Part l."
Th ealre joufI1aI47(1): 1- 18.
D a ly, All n. 1987, 'The Balanchine Woman: Of Hum1llingbird~ and Channel Swi m­
mers." Tulc/l1e f)ral/1a Rel'iew 31 (1): 8- 21.
- -o 1996, f)o/le buo f)al/ce. Bloomingtoll: Indiana LJniversity Press,
de Lauretis, Teresa . 1990. " Upping the Anti (sic) in Feminist Theory, " In Cunlficls i/l
Femil/ism. ed. Marianne Hirsch and Evelyn Fox Kellcr. 255 - 70. New York and
London: Routledge.
Derrida, Jaeques, and Christie V. MeDonald, 1995, "Choreogr<Jphies." In Bodies (JI
IIU' Texl: f)ance (lS Theory. Lilerature as f)ance , ed, Ellen Goellner and Jaequelille
Shea M urphy, 141 - 56. New Brunswiek , N .J.: Rutgers University Press,
Desmond, Jane, 1991. " Dancing out the Difference: Cultural Imperialism ami
Ruth SI. Denis' s 'Radha ' of 1906, " Signs: .Iollrl'/al oI WomelJ in Culllo'e (lnd Sociefy
17( 1): 28 - 49.
Dolan , Jill. 1993. "Geographies of Learning: Thcatrc Studies, Performance, ami the
' Perforrnative.' '' Thealre ./ou/'/wI45( 1): 417 41.
DlIncan, Naney. 1996. "Introdllction: (Re)placings." In Budy Spa('e , ed. Naney Dunea n,
1·, 10. New York ami London: Routledge,
Foster, Susall Lcigh. 1986. Reading Dancing: Bo(lies (//1(1 Subjecls in CO/1lel11f!Orary
Allleric(/n Dance. Berkeley ami Los Angeles, University 01' California Press.
- - o 1992, "Dancing Bodies, " In l/1{'O/pora/ion.\', ed. JOIUlthan erary Hml Sanford
Kwinter, 480 - 95. Zone, vol. 6, New York: Zone.
- -o 1996. Choreography amI Narralil'e: Baller's Staging 01 .'llor)' (}/1(/ f)esire .
Bloomington: India na University Press.
Fra nko, Mark. 1993. /)o//('e os Texl: ldeologies of' lhe BU/'O(/I/e Bod)'. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Prcss.
Gcertz, Clifford, 1973 . TI/(' 1nlerpre/(t1io/1 r~rCuILUre.\' . New York: Basie.
- -. 1980. " Blurred Genres: Tlle Refiguration ofSoeial Thought. " America/l Scholar
49(2) : 165 - 79,
Grosz, Eli zabeth. 1995, Spuce. Time. uml Perversio/l. New York ami London:
Roullcdgc.
I Icrnlllings, Ciare. 1993, "Resituating the Bisexual Body: From Idcntity to DitTerencc,"
In AClil'([ling Theol'y, ed. Josepll Bri.stow alld Angelia R. Wilson, 118- 38 . Londoll:
I ,awrcnee & WisharL
Jordanova , I.udmilla, 1989 , S exl/al Vi.l'io/1.s: 1mage,l' or Cc'//rlc/' ;/1 S ('ÍI'I/('e a//eI lIfedi('il/c
h('/II'('('// 1"" E'igh/( '{'lI l h (/1/(1 T I\'('lIIielll C<,nI urÍl·.I' , Ncw Y" rf.. . I I. lrvcslcr W hcatsllcal',
K acppl c r, /\ dricn nc 1 _ 11)72. "Mcl ll mJ and nH;\lry in A lla lv/ ll lp 1)" I1 e!.: Strllctlll'l' wit II
aIl /\ I1;rlYsi ~() I' T() II !, a !l Da ll t'c." 1~ /I/I/(}IIII/,I' ic '(!I"g l' 11',( ' ) 1/1 ' 1 I
, :.~
1 1I11 1( I fT Gll ,:nTfrH !S 'In
, 1 ', li , .l h~· lh I')X·\ 11'//('/'(' ,""//(' Ihll/c'('(l: 1'11,' I/ir"/ o( , I/I/{'ri(,(1I/ /11'/ /)w/('e.
I-.. \.' I11 la 11
IIc rk dcy ;lIld I ,l IS A lIgdcs: I IlIi vc rNit y 01' ( 'alil'orllia I'ress .
Kcut , KathrYII R. 1')%. ' '' No frespassing': Girl Scout Camp and the Limits of the
( 'uunterpublic Sphcre ." JVrJII/l'I1 0/1(1 Perjim1/onc(' S(2) : 44- 58 .
Killg. Kal ie. 1'NO. " Producing Sex, Theory , amI Culture : Ga y/Straight Remappings
in Contemporary Feminism." In Conflicl,l' in Feminisl17, ed . Marianne Hirsch ami
helyn Fox Keller. 82- 10 l. New York amI London: Routledge.
K riegsman , Salí Ann, 1981 , M odern Dance in Al7lcric(/: The Benninglon y¡,ats. Boston:
G. K. Ilall.
I.ewis, George. 1996, "1 mprovised M usic after 1950: Afrologieal and Eurological
Perspcctives, " Bla('k MU.I'ic Re.l'earcl/ ./0/./1'1/0/16(1): 91- 122.
I.ippard. Lucy, 1973 , Six Yeors: The f)e-Alul eriolizaliol7 u/lhe AI'/ Objecl/i'ol/1 1966
1972. New York: Praeger,
MacDonald , Erik. 1993. Th ealer al tite l\lorgil7s: Texl and Ihe Posl-Slru('lured S/age.
Ann Arbor: University of M ichigan Press,
Manl1ing, Susan , 1993 . E cs/(f.l'Y ({/1el Ihe f)eI11O/1: Feminism (/nd Natir!l1alism in Ih e
/)(/l1ces o( M(lry Wigman. Berkeley ami Los Angeles : University of Ca liforni a
Prcss.
Martin, Randy. 1996. " Overreading 'Thc Promised Land ' : Towards a Narrativc 01'
Contextin Dance. " 1n Corporealilies, ed. Susan Leigh Foster, 177 98. New York
ami LOlluon: Routledge .
Miller, Nancy K . 1991. Gel/ing Personal. New York amI LOlldon: Routledge .
Ness, Sally Anl1, 1992. Body , J\Iol'emenl. (11/(/ Cullu/'e: Kil1e.l'lhelic (1/1(1 Visual Sy mbol­
i.l'm in (/ Philippille Communily. Philade1phia: University of Pcnnsylv<luia Press.
Novack , Cynthia . 1990. SlllIring Ihe f)ance: (.'on/(/cl Imp/'ol'isrllion o/u/ American
Culfure, Madison : University of WiSCQllsin Press ,
Phelan . Peggy. 1994. Ul7l11arked. New York aud Lonuou : Routledge.
Rabinowitz, Paula. 1995, " son Fíctions alld Intimate Documents: Can Feminism
Be Posthuman')" In Poslhl//l1an Bodies. ed. Juditll Halberstam amI Ira Livingst o n,
97- 112. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Rainer, Yvonne. 1974, Work. 1961 73. Halifax ami New York: Press of the Nova
Seotia College of /\rt and Design amI New York University Press.
Roach , Joseph. 1996. Ciúes (~( Ihe f)ead. New York : Columbia University Press.
Robson, Jocelyn, amI Beverly Zaleoek. 1995. "Looking at ' Purnping Iron 11': Thc
Women .'· In ltll11l0rwl. 1l7visibll! . ed. Tamsin \Vilton . 182- 92, New York and London :
Routledgc .
Rose , Tricia . 1994, Blo('k Noise: Rap Mus;(' ol1d Black el/llltre in Conlempo/'{/ry
America. Hanover, N.H .. amI London : Wesleyan University Press and Universit y
Press 01' New England .
Ruytcr, Nancy Lec Chalfa. 1979, Re.!iJl'll1ers (//7(1 Visio/1ar;es: The Ameri('anizalion uj'
l!te Ar! o( /)(//1ce. Brooklyn: Dance Horizons.
Savigliano , Marta. 1995. Tal1go (//7(llhe Politic(/I Emno/lly rij'Passiol1. Boulder, Colo .:
Westview .
. 1996. "Fragrnents for él Story of Tango Bouies," In Corf!0realifie.l'. ed, Susan
I ,cigh F~)s l e r, 1')<) 232 . N ew Y ork and London: Routledge .
Scllor, N¡¡olll i. 1989, " D rcalllin g D iss YI1I111etry : B !l rthe~, F oueallll, and Sexua l D iffe r­
~ Il\:c . " 11.1 C"/I/il/~ lo / 1'1'111.1': ¡·(·/II/IIÍS/JI . 1'1/1'01'1', Pnlilic.l', ed. Elizabclh Weed , 47- 58,
Ncw Y'lrk :tlld Llllldoll: R nllt k d ~.(· ;lI ul ( ' 1"1:11'111;\11 & Ilall,
I ;IJ
 IfN ' ,· ,' I''t' i\Ñ ' ,1 flll : :> 1 , ,
S~~lll ,
I\ lIlIU Bealricc. 11)9'/' " SpC\;laL"lI: alld l)illICill¡r Bodi \.!S rhal Mall n : Or, Ir II
0011 " l'ít , DOII ' t Force 11. " In MI'!l/Ii/1.1~ ill ¡\Iolioll , eu.
Jane Deslllond , 2.':19 (¡8.
Durharn , N.C.. and London: Duke Universil y Press.
Senelick , La urcnce. 1992. lntroductiou lo Cender in Per/iJmU//1ce: The Presel1l{/fio/1 01'
Di/láe/1('e in ehe Per/órl/7ing Arl.\', ed. Laurenee Scnelick . i- xiii. Middletown , Conn.:
Wesleyan University Press.
Sparshott, Francis. 1988. O/filie CrowuJ. Princeton , N.J.: Princeton Universiry Press.
Tholllas. Helen. J 996. " Do You Want to Join the Dance'?" In ,~1o \ling Wordl·. ed. G ay
Morris, 63 --87. New Yo rk ano Lonoon: Routled ge.
T omko, Linda. In press. Da/1cing e/uss. Bloornington : Indiana Unive rsil y Press.
Vigarcllo . Georges. 1977. " Posture, cspace et pédagogie ." {)¡x-huilieme siede 9: 39­
48 .
--o1978. Le co rps redressé. Paris: J. P. Delarge.
W illiams, Drid. 1977 . 'The Nature of Danee: l\n Anthropological Perspeetive."
Dallce Research Joul'Ilal9( 1): 42 44.
Wolff, Janel. 1995. Reside/u Alien. London : Polily .
Worthen . William. 1995. " Disciplincs of the Text/Sites of Performance." Tu/une
Drallla Reriew 36( 1): 13 - 28.
Yarbro-llejarano . Yvonne. 1995. " Expanding lhe Calegories of Race and Sexllality in
G ay and Lesbian Stlldies. " In Prl~(e.\'siol/.\' o/Desire, ed . Gcorge Haggerty, 124- 35.
Ne", York : Modern Language Association of Arnerica.
Young, Iris Ma rion. 1990. H01 V lo Tlirol\' Like a Cirl and Orher Esso)'s in Feminisl
Philosopliy and So (,ial Theory . Bloomin gton: Indiana Universily Press.
1'1 0
74
PE R FO R MING LESBIAN IN THE
SPACE OF TECHNOLOGY
Part 1
Sue-EI/en Case
Sourcc: Theatre .IoUrl/iJ/47( 1)( ¡ ')<)5): ¡ '8.
The immediate problem is ho\V , 01' where. to begin to write the conjunetion
"performing" amI " lesbian " in this time of slippage amI upheaval. when:
medical teehnologies are redefining basie definitions of gender assignment,
even the deep structures 01' eorporeality itself, in genetic codes; a sexually­
transmitted pandemie is loose in the world , taking (safe) sexual praetiees
out into more virtual. abstraet realms; political categories such as " race," or
"sexual preference" are scrulinized at the deepest level as unstable, and even
lhe seismology of such instability doubts its o\Vn methods.
The very lerm "Iesbian " is slipping semiotically on the banana peel
01' mainstream and academic fashion, signifying everything from Banana
Republie's "My Chosen Family" ofjeans amI tanks tops, K. D . Lang posing
rol' a shave on the cover of Vanil y Fair, amI ads for strapping on a dildo ; to a
way to " read" Hollywood movies, such as Single Whil e Fema/e, or staking a
critical , theoretical claim in the term " queer."j In fact , in some qucer eircles,
the term " Iesbian " has been evacuated . Understood as a term of the 1970s,
connoting " Iesbian feminist ," " Iesbian ," in that sense, has been overwritten
by the queer-derived " dykc"·- -more proximate to gay men in identification
lhan the seemingly wOlllan-signifying term " Iesbian." ls there a \Vay to retain
lhe notion 01' " lesbian" in technology , while still marking a material history
(JI' lesbia n lives---one that might combine the theoretical tradition of lesbian
ICminist thought amI new " queer" inscriptions through sexual practice? Could
thc two tradilions help to bring about a new form of coalition polities')
While " Ic'ibia n" COmes um.ler scrutiny, the other tenn in lhe conjunction
"pcrrorm in/! ksbian " is trouhl cd hy the cha nging sen se of performance. " Live"
pcrftl rma m:\!. slill burdcncd wil h t I) e pmh lcm 01' acco unling for something
1" I
 1 111 ' N I I I Y ¡\ N U '1 111 ., 1 1 I
cu lbllh-: "hody," has, ill variOlls wilys. :d k naph:d lu l'Ollslrud a slagillg nI'
lhc rdationship belwccn the boJy and Ihc ncw cy hl'rsphcr-:. The traditioll
nr pcrrormance as something "Ii ve" ami cmbodied, has, lhmughout much of
the lwentieth ccntury, been challengeJ by the scre-:n . Movies, tclevision. the
computer and new, virtual systems interrogate the "¡¡ve" body and its tradi­
tion by their screenic contex t. In performance, is the body poised between its
appearance within national and kinship systems and its disappearance among
multiplc scrccns, as in Jean Genet's play The Screens, in which the protagonist
f¡nally disappears from among a series of them? Or, is it, as in Steve Reich 's Fhe
Cave, the subject position distributed among stage technologies and screens?
W ill the body be totally subsumed in an interactive, virtual n:ality, as in the
movie The LaIVnl110Wef ll;fall? Is performing the body's rclation to the screen
the repetitive hurling of it against the screen, like E1izabeth Streb's dancers,
who h url themsclves against walls, miking the music of thudding bodies? Or
is thc performing body composed ofscreens, as in Nam June Paik's "Family
01' Robot, Unc1c" and , respectivcly, "Aunt"'? Paik's arrangement of antique
TVs in the humanoid shape ofa robot, with performing bodies o¡¡¡ their scrcens
ironically quotes systems ofthe body and ofkinship, Both humanoid systems
and thcir simulation, "Robot," signify a nostalgic, antique, representational
systcm-a quaint notion ofthemselves. For Paik, screened bodies have over­
taken industrial, mechanical ones as video sculpture has overtaken TV.
Yet, ir the body pcrsists in standing "¡¡ve" onstage, not screencd, is it
caught in the gestures of the routing of human agency through technology ,
as Laurie Anderson 's live performances, in which her voiee is transformed in
the mike, foregrollnding the rOllting? Is the " Iive," gendered, experiential1y­
specifie body in tension with tho secming neutralization of it as it passes
through technological channels? How does the body perform Big Science, as
Anderson entitles it? 1s it in consonance with screens--can the two orders
play with and against one another? Or must the body be consigned to the
empty stage, alone before the live audience, in the tradition of "poor" theatre
beca use of the new, diseounted value assigned to the tlesh , as the continuing
practice of one-person shows insists') Is "performing lesbian ," then , sorne
conjunction of these elements, such as a wall of video screens projecting
images of dildo scenarios, anonymous. but costullled in appropriate retro
butch-femme wcar- sex-radical , but also reticent in its feminist memorios'.
Or is it 1ive sex acts in the " poor" theatres of the small, migrant bar culture'?
Even these sllggestions wil1 not carry into eontemporary critical theory, for
the new sense of "q ueer performativity" would challenge the formulation
"performing lesbian" as retaining, in its terms, the assumptions of identi ty
and visibility po1itics-- what has becn considered lo he the esscntialist trap 01'
idealist philosophical syslems. More Ihan any ot he l chu!'gc , '\ :ssenlialism "
has focused critical energy againsl Ih-: no ti on:-i "r "h::-lhiiln " and "p-:rform ­
ance" in rece n! work:;, c1aiming Ihe scop~ ora ('IlI l lId i¡tIll -; hil'llu corrcct Ihe
nn lolugical f¡dl acies inhcrcnl in idcl1l il y p"li liGs, '.'11 thl' \l lí l' halld, a llll Lhe
I jl
I'I · RI·( )I(l\I I NI' 1. I S lIl ¡\N IN '1'111 : SI'¡\ ( ' I': ()Jo' 11 , ( ' IINIll,( HlY
clllcrpri::;e ol'visibilily inlhc syslclll orrcprcs-:nlation 011 the other. Rctaining
the conjunctiol1 " pcrrormil1g 1esbian," thcn, willfully challenges the essential­
isl chargc.
Re-charging essentialism
In writing "performing lesbian " in the face of " queer performativity," I want
lo directly confront the charge of essentialism. Briefly, the charge is that
idcntity politics rest on thc base that one might " be" a lesbian , thereby
invoking an ontological c1aim. According to the poststructura1ist critique,
such a notion posits the formation of the subject position as prior to other
social constfllctions--possibly even deterlllining them. M oreover, it charges
Ihat identity has been imagined as visible, demanding space in the regime
01' representation as one of its political projects. Identity and visibility are
both made to c1ailll the notion of presence in thcir constitution of the " Iive"
and the body. In order to evacuate the regime of identity and visibility , the
charge of essentia1ism has attended so diligently to the prob1cms inherent in
the c1aim of "being" that it has obscured the broadcr, structural fundion of
Ihe termo
What is essentialist, or at least metaphysical, the ruinous worm buried
in essentia1ism, is the kind of argument that is ultimately based on a self­
generating self referentiality , which has, in the eurocentric tradition. his­
10rically secured its dosed status by an appeal to "ontology." In other words,
what is structurally essentia1ist or metaphysical in an argument is the c1aim
Ihat the system rests, finally, on sorne self-generating principIe -...that it cu ts
loose from outside dependencies -.. .. operates outside of the historical , mate rial
nmditions of change. Essentialism procures the metaphysical through a
1I0tion of Being as an essence. An essence, as Teresa de Lauretis notes in
"The Essenee of the Triangle or, Taking the Risk of Essentialism Seriously:
t'" cminist Theory in Italy, the U.S. , and Britain" c1aims the function 01' "Ihe
rmlity 1I11derlying phC/lomena" or "'{¡((l internal constiWtion, on lVhic!J ((lllhe
sel/sihle properties depend."2 In other words. an esscnce functions in a philo­
sophical system as the location where "the buck stops," or where "the thing"
is, hcyond any other referent "in itself, " De Lauretis counters the charge
nI' csscntialislll hy distinguishing a "nominal esscnce" in contrast to a " real "
"IIC, lhat would , within a feminist project, proffer an "embodied. situated
kllow1cdgc, " as mutable and historical1y contextua1ized .' She slips the rug out
frolll undcr or from within the " thing," resting its identity claim as contingent
IIpon vlJlilion. on Ihe onc hand (the femini st project) and material circum­
slanccs, on Ihe lJlher.ller aim is to rctain the projeel ofidentifying in order to
dla ll~ngc "di rccl1y Ihc social -sym holic inslilulion orhctero sex ll ality:'~ Within
Ilris ¡;ri liGd cnv il'on menl. "' pc r rorm i n¡~ lesb ia n" would be taking what dc
l a ll l ~lis l:lIlls " IIIl~ csscll liul isl l isk" ru i'l,.l'm lll Ilre idcnlity o fl esbi an ag::Jins l
111;11 "f lr l:ll: II ISC:W :.r !. ( cll a illlv , II dH Ih " I.lllIil iar anu W<: Ii.; OlllC sl ra tcgy,
I j) ~\
 1 nrNTi l' \ N II 1" Il S I ILI '
De LUU l'dis l'eJclincs CSSCII CC l~) COU Ilh:1 Iltl: essc lllialist l'ilargc. Bmrowin¡',
hcr adjllstment tu rccontcxtua li/.c Ih e iSSUI:, I \Va nl tú revcrse the eharge lo
identifya metaphysieal base wil hin the poststrucluralist argumcnt. De Laurclis
reconfirms an open system, in which signs still ret,ti n a scnsc of rcfcrcnts
outside their purely textual ones. Heteroscxuality, in her argumenL appears
as both a social and sym bolic institution. In poststruet uralist arguments, lhe
eharge of essentialism has been used to erode this sense 01' a refercnt outside
01' the lingllistie or discursive system. De Lauretis 's gesture of rcinstating a
eonfiguration of feminist polities against the eharge 01' esscntialism, through
a study of an actual political collecti ve in ltaly- a system that accOllnts for
and is accollntable to a social movement - traces the critical space in which
I would Iike to position the poststructuralist charge that would empty out
identity and the order 01' visibility. For. as we will see, such anti-essentialisl
systems, while they esehew ontology , rest on other bases which funetion to
set up a self-generating, self-referential. and in that manner, metaphysieal
argument. Th us, they operate in the refined atmosphcre of " pure" theory and
writing. abandoning earlier materialist discourscs that signalled to activist,
grass-roots coalitions, while c1aiming a less essentialist base.
Queer perjormat;v;ty
Debates over the meaning 01' perfo rmativity ha ve been linked to the adop­
tion 01' the term "queer" in some critical quarters. As Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick
describes it in "Queer Performativity," Judith Butler's proposal 01' gender­
bending performativity in Gender Trouh/e has been a central tool for the
" recruitment" 01' graduate students into gay stlldies. 5 The journal g/q (a
jou/'I1a/ ol/eshia/1 ami goy sll/dies) even dedieated its inaugural issue to a
dialogue between Sedgwick and Butler on queer performativity . If queer
corrects the tradition 01' 1esbian identity politics, performativity corrects the
attendant regimes of the "live" and performance. Looking to Sedgwick's and
Butler's artides as coneise summaries of the positions. the necessa ry bond
bctween "queer" and " performativity" serves to focus several critical anxieties
that the departure from the troubled territories 01' " lesbian" and "perform­
ance" seeks to allay.
Performativity describes a critieal strategy seemingly more deconstructive
in its account of " performance" as signo lt strips the mask from masquerade
that would still retain an actor/subject behind the sho\\'. Queer performativity
identifies its operation as semiotic iterations of power contested at the sites of
gender identification a nd legal , medical discourses eoncerning sexual prac­
tices. Perfo rmativity , as Sedgwick sees it, "earries the authority of two quite
different discourses, that of theatre on the one ha nd , of speech-act theory and
dcconstruetion on th e other. . .. Span ning the Jisl ancc hc twcen the exlrol'(!j'­
siO/1 01' t he aclor, the ;/1(/'O I'('/'sioll 01' l h l~ sign il ic r. ,,(, Scd gw id allributes lhe
c,xdu sivc r"I<l lion bClwCC I1 pcrlol'lnativil y and 1111' pl' l rO l ll l: IIIC!! M l.!.cndcr In
1'1"1
11 , ' II N IJ! ( )( i\
III\: BII 1Il' I ~ l ll\ qHlll lld 1':111 11': 111:1 dy dl'ag p e ll'llllll:lIlCl'S. Sl'dgwiek would
l'x lcnd pcrflll lllat ivil y lo '\:ollling out. 1'01' work arolllld ¡\II>S and 1'01' the seU'..
lahdl'd . I l'iulsvc r:;dy h ui urgc ntl y rcprescntational placarded body of del1'lo/1­
sl/'alio/l. " In otller words. the "livc" body is performativc when "self-placarded
Iinl dl'nHJIlstration ."
Tlle hard-woll "visibility" of ¡\CI UP demonstrations ha s spurred critics
such as Scdgwick to account for such activism by \\'riting theories dependent
011 some not ion 01' the subculture. Sedgwick's sense of the " self- placarded"
admits agency and the visible , while semiotizing it. To those famili ar with
the standard praeticcs 01' agit-prop theatre , or the Brechtian notíon of
" distanciation ," ¡\eT u p's strategies and Sedgwick's representa tion of them
do not secm to diverge from nllmerOllS historieal models . The Breehtian
Iradition of political thcatre has long regarded any modes of suturing as
cmpathetic st ructures that retain mystified c1ass relations. thus rendering
cvery performing body a placarded demo nstration of social gesture- either
complicit with dominant praetices, oro in Brechtian Epic practices, a chal­
Icnge to the status quo. However, what Sedgwick identifies as the qucer­
specific mode 01' performativity is one catalyzed by "shame ," distinguishin g
it from those propelled into representation by other mechanisms 01' oppres­
sion, such as dass relations in the Brechtian model. Unlike the material
rclations of dass. the catalytic relation of "shame" to "performativity" estab­
lishes a bridge betwecn interna l dynamics and the order 01' the visible. This
crossing of the internal/external divide may pro vide the key contriblltion 01'
"queer" to "performativity" which has made the compound so inviting to
theorists in recent years. Diana Fuss, in he r introduetion to the inftucntial
anthology, inside/out, mark s this relati on as the signatllre of new critical
practices 7 We will see, in a later discllssion. just how this works along the
contested borders of the visible and wrilin g. Yet Sedgwick only passingly
admits demonstrations into her discussion. She ultimatel y settles upon Henry
.Iames's Prefaces in the New York Edition of his work as the prime site of
¡x:rformativity.
Before addressing the consequences of Sedgwick 's return to writing, I
want to inculcate Butler's use 01' " queer performativity" to explore just how
reading amI writing have been made to overtake traditional notions of per­
l'onnance . In "Critically Queer," Buller emphasizes that " there is no power.
l'l)nstrued as a subjeet, that acts , but only a reiterated aeting that is power in
ils persistence and instability."g Butler's Illission is to evaeuate notions ofthe
\ uhjcct/agcllcy from within the systelll ofperformativity. She emphasizes that
"Perfonnativity . then. is to be read not as self..expression or self-presentation,
huI as the ul1anticipated resignifiabi1ity of highly invested term5. "9 Butler
l'Ol1tinues , wúr king from J. L. Auslin . to locate such performativity within
:;tudics of spccch acls, assc rting thal : " pcrt'onnative aets a re forllls ofauthor­
il a live "pcol.:h." Rcframin g Ihe operalilllls 01' "qucer" wi thin th ose 01' " per­
l,um<lt ivi IY," BU Ih.:r I¡nds Illal
I·l
 (P I! N I I J \ ... 'N I) 111 1 !;l l l.I '
rhc lCnll " q uccr" c ll lcrgcs as all 11I ti '1 pdld lit lB (lIa ( 1aisl:s (lIe q lIesl ion
01' the SIal U!) 1> 1" force ami oppositioll 01 ~ ( . l yllb i li(y and va riahilily ,
lVi/hin perfonnativity.1O
The term "queer," opcrating within these paramelers provides the solution to
earlier conundra Butler identified in her in fl uential article " Imitation and
Gender Subordination ," in which she problem atizes the rubric "Iesbian
theory. " "Lesbian ," as connoting sexual practice causes her:
To install myself within the terms of an idcntity category [which]
would be to turn against the sex uality that the category purports to
describe; and this might be true for any identity category which seeks
to control the very eroticism that it c1aims to describe and author­
ize , m uch less "Iiberate" .... For it is always finally unclear what
is mcant by invokin g the lesbian-signifier, since its signification is
always to some degree out of one's control. but also bccause its
specificity can only be demarcated by exclusions that return to di s­
rupt its c1aim to coherence. '1
For Butler, " Iesbian ," as an identity, is overdetermined by hcterosexuality.
It is actual1y produced by homophobia , articulates the (by definition)
unarticulable in its c\aim to scxuality, is both "o ut of contro\" for those rea­
sons, and oppressive in drawing exc\usionary borders of specificity. "Queer"
evacuates the fulsomc problema tic of "Iesbian" to operate as an unmarkcd
interpellation, thus avoiding that exc\usionary speciticity.
"Queer" occurs within "performativity" which Butler, in the earlier
artic\e, defines as evacuating "performance" by denying "a prior and voli­
tional subject." In fact, as she would have it, "performative " "constitutcs
as an cffect the very subject it appears to express. "12 O nlike Sedgwick's sense
of performativity, Butler's sets out to contradict traditional agit-prop or
Brechtian theatrical strategies that encourage actors and spectators alike
to imagi ne themselves as an agent of change. Butler gives over that agency
to a "reiteratcd acting that is power in its persistence and instability.
... a nexus 01' power and discourse that repeats or mimes the discursivC'
gest ures 01' power."" She insists that the subject is merely a product 01' such
iterations:
Where there is an "1" who utters or speaks ... there is first a discourse
which precedes and enables that "1 " . ... Indeed , I can only say '"1"
to the extent that I have first been add ressed, and that address has
mobilized my place in speech; paraJ ox i..:al1y , the Jiscllrsi\'c eondi­
ti on of social recogni tion ¡Jrf'{'ede,\' {/l1d con di/ ¡/11I,I' I he fOl'lna Iion nI'
the su bjccl. 14
1.1\ (,
I'El t l (JltMINli I II S ill AN IN 1111 ' S I'AI I 111 , I l íC' tlN OI O<. i Y
(icncrally. Ih i~ III.:aIIl1CI1( 01' subject lo rlllaliun is rallliliar lo rcaders 01' post­
slruetura lisl. VI i!vi!n G ramscia n lhctll'y. Thc signature 01' Butler's strategy
here resides in its l)wn cmphasis on ""precedes and conditions. "
Moving un argument through the notion of "preceding" is reminiscent 01'
an earlicr philosophical move that would also confront Idealism , the mother
01' essentialism, bu t that finan y, reinscr ibes a metaphysical prcsumption at its
base: Aristotle's notion of the prime mover in his Mewphysics. Marking his
base as "substance" in contrast to Plato's Ideas , Aristotle finds himselfwithin
the currently familiar dilemma of the con tradictions between compound , or
heterogeneous "substanees " and the unity of " identity ." Against the essen­
tialist stasis of identity, Aristotle al so anives at th e function 01' acting (read
performativity) as mutable and motile :
N othing, then , is gaineJ even if we suppose eternal substances, as the
believers in the 1'orms do, unless there is to be in them some principIe
which can cause change-for if it is not to a{'/ there wil1 be no
movement. 15
But the cause 01' action , or change, suggests prior agency- a problem both
i\ristotle and Butler would solve. Butler poses discourse as that which pre­
cedes and " mobilizes" the formation of such agency in the subject positi on.
Then how do discourse and power avoid the same correction as the subject­
to be preceded by something that determines their agency? Butler posits
"reiterated acting that is power" as the generator of the system. Aristotle
strikes a structural1y consonant tone , as his chain 01' " preeedings" resol ves in
the self-referential notion 01' "thought thinking on itself."16 Since thought is
both the subject and the object 01' its operations, argues Aristotle, it iterates
itself and thus becomes the " prime mover. " " Reiterated acting" describes a
similarly self-referentiaI function that "precedes and determines" agcncy ,
without begging a further precedent. Now, i\ristotle literalizes the theolo­
gical implications in such a strategy, cal1ing the prime mover "god ," while
still insisting on substance against Idea. Butler, in overwriting human agency
with sclr-itcrating acting as "power," embeds the theological , self-referential
" preceder" in what she emphasizes is an anti-essentialist move. In order to
deconstruct the location ofthe subject as preceJing the social, Butler reverses
lhe equation, necessarily retaining what is metaphysical in both postulations:
a self-iterating function that " precedes."
In Butlcr's argument, iteration itself, mediating the relation 01' power to
aCling fmal1y functions as re-iteration. Whereas Aristotle found , in thought
Ihinking on ilself, a self-generating col1apse of subject/object positions,
But\cr ¡¡res IIp the motor 01' iteration by repetition . When al1 referents fail
(u ~i gnH I iln yl hin g outside lhe SystCIll, rcpetition becOllles its dynamic as is
uhviolls in ~I.!ve nl l n I' Bu ller':; kcy l,;o l1l.:cpl s: '" lh e psychc ca11s to be rethought
I ¡¡ '1

as a ¡;OlllPul sivc rc pctitiOll ."17 " rq l~lill(lIl I ~, llit \\.1\ '" \\ hie h )lower w(l rk ~ lo
const rud the illllsioJl 01' a sC<LlI1kss h c l cms~'\II.tlll kl lltl y." " tite vc ry cx¡; n..:ise
01' repetition is red cployed ror a very JiJ'lácnl pl.! tf o lllla live pllrposc. " I X Re­
petitio n. then , the dynamic 01' scll'-gclleraling scll' rc lcrcnlialily is lhe aelion.
the acti vism proposed by the argument.
Yet lurking in the project to make writing acti ve, to makc theorizing a
significant actor, in spite or all rcpetitive iterations, o r theo rctieal stomps. is
the writer. Ironically , but fittingly , the evacuation ofidentity. t he old political
compouno , by selr-referentiality beeomes literal , eoncluding the a rgument at
the sitc of the sel r- the a uthor. Finally, "queer performativity" is located in
Hutler's oecision to accept (mis)readings or her own writing:
It is one of the ambivalent implications of the decentering of the
subject to havc one 's writing be the site of a necessary ano inevitable
expropriation , . , . yielding or ownership over what onc writes [and]
not owning of one's words. ... the melancholic reiteration or a lan­
guage one never ehose , l ~
In spite ofmoves to Ihe contrary , Butler has reinstateo the sLlbject (orwriting)
as herselr, " Melancholic reiteration" motivates her critical production, as
she reporteo in an interview , 'Tve just finished writing another manuscript
in which I spend page after page trying to refute the reduction of gender
performance to something Iike style. "211 When the author, by virtue of her
own theories, forgoes her role as representative, either of a movement, act­
ivist group, or even , through identity politics, the conoitions of lesbian , or
some form 01' social oppression , self referentiality can become either formalist
philosophical argllments , or prey to media adulation , as the troubling (to
Butler) appearance of the fanzine .fudy! illustrates.21 Writing, as Derrida set
out to illustrate, cannot, in spite or alluring, queer performative gyrations,
wriggle free of the metaphysical · -even ir it scapegoats lesbian and feminist
writings as sites 01' identity and presence.
And this brings us to the way in which a notion of performativity, as in
both Butler and Sedgwick , while referencing activist demonstrations, is finally
most alluring as an effect orwriting and reading. In fact. one might argue, the
project of performativity is to recuperate writing at the end of print culture.
In Sedgwick , q ueer performa ti vity is best enacted by the Prefaces of J lenry
James ano in Butler, it resides in accommodating misreadings 01' her own
writing. Not surprisingly , the critical discourses 01' speech-act theory amI
deconstruction ultimately bring the notion of perrormativity back to their
own mode of production: print. It is confounding lo observe how a lcsbianl
gay movement about sex. uaL bodil y practices and lhe IClltal clrcet:> 01' él viru s,
which has iSslleo an agit-prop éIl:tivi st trao itio n fm lll il s loin s, as wdl as a
Puli tze r-pri ze winning Broau way play (A lIg d\ ill , 11II1',·íl'll ). wu ulJ h¡¡vc. a s its
cri tica l o pcralion, a nnlinn nI' rcrl~)nn a liv i l " ih itl , 11 " 1\',, ba ~:" to w litt ctl
In;
l'IIUll ltM I I..jU t. H.... II I ¡\N IN 11/1 . SI' /\ C' I' (1/ ' ~ I ' H 'IJ NO I ()(iY
IcXlS, a ból lltl o llil1 l,', histurieal trauilions 01' performance I'or lhe print modes of
Iilera ry a nú philos(lpltical scruliny , "Quecr." then , moves identity to reader­
ship a.nu "performativity " imbues writing with performance.
BUl'yütF: tire Jive body
What happens when critics of "Iive performance" attempt to accommodate
this new sense of perfonnativity and its privileging of print culture? Posi­
tioned at the intersection of the realm 01' the visible with the "live," \Vithin a
lradition that roregrounds the body and resists recording technologies. such
as the camera or print, perrormance seems unable to partake in the strategies
01' performativity. In aooressing perrormativity, the critics of " live perform­
ance" oetail a clear axis of oependencies along the notions of " performativity ,"
"quecr," ano the realm orthe visible in relation to that ofwriting. They must
discover a \Vay in which to rio the " live" 01' the contamination of " presence"
ano install writing at the scene of visible action .
Not all performance critics have becn seduced by queer performativity ,
Janelle Reinelt, in " Staging the Invisible: The Crisis of Visibility in Theatr­
ical Representation ," ioentifies one danger inhcrent in these operations of
performativity. Reinclt challenges Hutler' s arguments for their extraction
01' visibility ano ioentity politics from theatrical prodllction . Moreover, she
concludes that Butler' s only notion 01' political action , to pcrturb the system,
is a oangerous onc. She argues that the notion of subversion , by aboicating
any clear program for change, offers what secms to be a subversi on 01' the
dominant order, but in fact lea ves hegemonic cooes of visibility in place.
Reinelt deems the subvcrsive strategy "theological ," operating on the " blind
raith " that once the dominant system is perlurbeo , the hold of the hcgemonic
will somehow give way and the lot of oppresscd people in the system will be
improveo. Reinelt qllotes one example of Butlcr's leap of raith: "Subversive­
ncss is not somethin g that can be gaugeo or calculateo . In raet, what I mean
by subversion are those effects that are incalcLllable ." 2~
In oroer to illustrate her point to the contrary , Reinelt describes ho\V a
cross-genoer, cross-racial casting 01' the character 01' Betty, in Caryl Church­
ill 's Cloud Ninc, serveo to reminize markers of race in challenging those 01'
gcnder. Reinclt oescribes the audience's laughter when the colonial, white
C1ive kisses thc African-American male actor playing Betty, as celebrating
1he reminization of the African-American man in white, colonial practices . 1n
t his case, perturbing gender roles by cross-gender casting does not destabilize
tltl~ genucr and racial markers; instead , it reinscribes the negative way in
wltieh markl'rs 01' genoer and race are used against one another in dominant
practil'cs. In spilc 01' pcrtw'balions 01' the system. the traoitional codes reas­
snt thcmsclvcs. Likewise, Reincl t a rg ucs, Butler':; ana lysis of the fil m P ari.l' ;.1'
/lllfl/;I/g, whidl ló c lIscs 0 11 Vcn uo; Xl ra vaga ni'a as a subjcct who "repeats and
tllillteS k ¡.!il im aling lI ()rms hy \V ll u.: h 1I tl sdl' has hccn ucgraueJ, " actual1y
I 1'1
 TTT~"'"
IJ I'IH .'i i ~ 1. 1
illuslrall!.,> lhe k:thal pOWt'r DI" Ihl!.'~ " 11 111 111'; 11)' "L' kdil1 ~ Ih~ "pcrlimnc r" in
the film who is IllUrdel\'U by SOIl1 CO IlC tÚI wh tH lI "sh~ apparcntly diJ n ',
'pass.' ,,2,
In contrast to Reinelt 's skepticislll ahollt polilics witholll prograllls, or
outside referents, Lynda J lart 's recent work seeks to reconcile lhe notions 01'
pcrforlllativity \Vith the vi sible reaJIll of " Iive" performance. The terms queer
amI performativity offer a direct challenge to Hart, who, p reviously, ha:;
written within a tradition 01' critica.! aecounts 01' "performing lesbian ." While
she does nol evacuate the term " lesbian, " she does attempt to Illove it !'rom its
traditional context ofvisibility politics to function more like the term "q ueer "
in regard to performativity. Yet the retention of "Iesbian " causes an oscilla­
tion between the two systelllS that Han cannot quite resolve. Her solutionlies
in adding Lacan to the formulation.
Ha rt begins her artide "I dentity and Seduction: Lesbians in the Main­
stream" by addressing the tra ditional question: how does a lesbia n look or
aet like one? In a consideration of a butch/femlllc performance by Peggy
Shaw and Lois Weaver, the performing duo that has catalyzed most theoriza­
tion in the field, Hart aligns the term " Iesbian" with the polities ofvisibility,
as tainted by essentia.!ism. Yet, rather than situate "queer" as the correction
to this traditional sense of " Iesbian visibility," Hart posits psychoanalytic
theory :
According to such responses, Weaver and Shaw were unsuccessful
in presenting thelllselves as lesbians. But what is this "something-to­
be-seen " that is presumed to be so crucial to the political project?
Why do we always assume that visibility always and everywhere
has a positive sociopolitical value? Visibility politics, the dominant
agenda of gay and lesbian aetivislll, dashes with psychoanalytical con­
structions of sexual subjectivities. The former 's assertion of identity
politics is unraveled by the latter's destabilizing identificati o ns . ~4
The lingering problem for H a rt, which had been abandoned by the textual
rctllrn effected by Butler and Sedgwick , is in the realm of what is seen- the
" mea!" (JI' the matter. Hart is stilllooking at live performance. I-I o wever, she
linds that such visibility " risk(s) rein stating a melaphysics of substance in
urder lo maintain él political perspective that can be referred to as lcsbian. "25
'·S ubstance. " once the base of a materialist critique in contradietion to an
csscntialist one, no\\', associated with visibility and identity, ri sks csscnti­
alislll by turgidly resisting the psychoanalytic strategy of positing "sexual
suhjectivilies." Han would not "see" the eontarninaled meal 01' lhe material,
nor ils d o uble, identity, y Cl she will con tinue lo look ln rcm a in a spí:cta toT.
1r sI l!: will not risk lhe sig hl 01' Icsbian idl'l1 fify , w ba l I.'oll ld -;111': ... ce? F o llow ing
in lhe Bll ltcri an llIoJe, Ilar l aclua lly ma ll ;¡gcs 1\1 ,(:~, II I¡' hilla ry Ihe stash
Ih e nule lhal mns Ih lllllgh Sha w anJ WI.':lvl: 'l.; 1111 [( 1I11 ~'lI l1 tll.' tn h.- pla yill g.
1'10
'I I N OI ()( i Y
BuLd1/ku llll( is 1111 hlllgt'r a way lo llIakc " h.-sbian " visihle, with its markin g
nr \:xpericm:c alld hislory; ralhcr, 1'01' J lar!, bulch/lCmme performance pro vides
a "challcnge lloJ the conslruclion 01' the heterosexual/homosexual binary ,
adultí:rating the first term and foregrounding the productioll 01' the second
tcrm."26 Putting it another \Vay , lesbian visibility gives way to lhe visibility
01' the production of the binary. The spectalor effects seeing the strllctllration
of relalionships. This new brand 01' structuralism , coming full circle from the
kind 01' cssentialist charges once levelled at its tradition (think of Claude
Levi-Strauss 's \York on face painting in Triste Tropique and the reception of it
as essentialist), reorganizes the visible.
Valiantly , while arguing with visibility politics. H a rt resists the term " queer. "
Oscillating between the two strategies 01' lesbi an visibility and queer per­
formativity, Hart's argument slips through several posi tions, as she pro poses
"lesbian desire," the ability of spectators to "see lesbians," and " lesbian
subjectivity." Ha rt finally arrives at lhe solution in retaining both thc visible,
the live, and its evacuation in the notion of a " hallucination " of 1csbian
within the "s pecular econollly." What Hart has accomplished by the revision
is this: subjective processes have been empowered to absorb the realm of the
visible. Hart resolves the initial dilelllma between visiblelidentities and inter­
nal , discursive functi o ns by empo\Vering the latter to swallow up the former.
Once firmly on the ground of slIbjectivities, through the notion of hallucina­
tion, Hart can actually "see" Shaw and Weaver prod uce the binary .
Finally free of the axis of visible/identity/body/live through her unique
blending of Lacan with Butler, Hart can writ e abollt a lesbian performance.
Withollt recourse to a written text for the move, that is. withollt reading a
playscript, but remaining tllned to five performance, hallucination all ows
Hart to textualize what seems to " mean " outside 01' linguistic systems. She
can employ the master narratives of writin g -·the internal "o ut" available
within psychoanalytic discoursc. Hart can then make the return to writing
that Sedgwick and Butler effccted in their notions 01' performativity, whilc
seemingly retainin g a focus on live performance.
Hart has overcome the way in which perform a nce has traditionally per­
lurhed the interpretive powcr of print. After a]] , critics 01' theatre, dance, and
mllsic are familiar with th e lon g, precarious tradition of writil1g arts criticismo
Yel , within current critical debates, the contestation between lhese two orders
seellls lo have overrlln the borders 01' the traditional dispute. The obsession
with thc performative aspect of writing, from within many critical qllarters,
marks a reconfiguration of strategies through which print may once again
claim thc produetion of meaning for the reallll of the visual and the active.
hlah1ishing writing as performativc both admits its limit amI reestablishes its
dominallce. In terms of performance, it becomes the victory of lhe speetator
ovcr lhe pcrformanc\! lhe o lJ id iom " heauty is in the eye of the beh older"
beco llles cOlIslil\lli ve and all-cl1l bmcinj? in I.his new formula . Performance is
m atk lo yield l/l is precise poi lll
I ~.¡
 ITI
Wh¡; rl:as slIch lh:ha ll:S o ve !' w r i 11111' '' I .. h; 11 1 1q!l ll d 111 pl:1f'ormalll'l: m ay
rcside in lhe subtcxt 01' thl: aho ve crilics, I'cggy l' lil' lulI . 111 Ihe chapkr (JI' hl:r
book Ul1l11orked.. cntitlcd "The O nlol ogy 01' I'crfll rtl lancc" din.:clly adurcsscs
this struggle. After sctting out lhe familiar dlarges: "Performance implicates
the rcal through the presence ofliving bodies" ami " Jive performance plunges
into visibility,"27 Phelan situates these critical problem $ with performance
at the sitc of writing. First , she notes that "To attempt to write about the
undocumcntable event of performance is to invoke the rules 01' the written
document and thereby alter the event itself. ,,18 She then reverses the direction
of the critique, however, to lead her argument back to writing as performative:
Thc challenge raised by the ontological c1aims 01' performance for
writing is to re-mark again the performative possibilit ies of writing
itself. The act of writing towa rd disappearance. rather than the act of
writing toward preservation, must remember that the after-effect
of disappearam:e is the experience 01' subjectivity itself. 29
The use ofperformance, then. is to challenge writing to become performative.
The contradiction between performance, as mutable and non-reproductive ,
and writing, as stable and reproductive, motivates writing to somehow perform
"mimicry" and " to disco ver a way for repeated words to become performat­
ive ulterances ."w Not surprisingly, J. L. Austin does not follo\\' far behind.
These new strategies 01' writing follow on lhe heels of deconstruction , a
strategy linked to the role 01' writing. They seek a way to extend writing
to those whom it had previously dispossessed. While Phelan never writes
"lesbian " or "queer," she does situate the performance of writing in terms
of gender, deploying the category of "women," andfinally "mother" as the
dispossessed , as body. How can writing finally accommodate them? Once
again, performance enters the scene as that which insists upon the body and
c1arifies the problem:
For performance art itselfhowever, the referent is always the agoniz­
ingly relevant body ofthe performer. . . . In performance. the body is
metonymic 01' self, ol' chamcter, of voice, 01' "presence." But in the
plenitude of its apparent visibility and availability, the performer
aetllally disappears and represents something clse- dance, move­
ment , sound, character, " art. " . .. Performance uses the perfonner's
body to pose a question about the inability to secure the relation
between subjectivity and the body per se; performance uses the body
lo frame the lack of Being promised by and through the body- that
which C(lnnot appcar without a supplernent. "
The sllpp tel11enl is Ihe gazc , wh ich is constil lll eu l hllllll, ll c:l sl ration and the
invisihle genilals lit' 11l\' llI o tlle!'. As P hclu ll !lllt' 11 , ~L'l'i ll f' is lhe Ica r 0 1'
15
l' l' IU 11 U M 1N il I liS 111 /\ N I N- fll lf-,'i I ' ¡\ I I 1/ lil e 11 N \1 1 ( J( i '
hlillu tless: 1'111\11.llillll. ThwlI glt a L.acalliall m. Yllllll'l)nic lúrlllulation . sight,
tlll.': bod y. anJ perlúnIlance bccol11e the silc rOl' loss.lack. and disappearance: 12
As Ihe hudy atlains subjcctivity through the promise of disappearance, the
allxiolls cyc wriles perl'ormativity - securing for writing that same promise of
uisappcarance, freeing it from its fetters as a recording device.
Likewise, the critical/political role Phclan assigns to performance is that 01'
"radical negativity."'l As she sees the blindfolded An gelika Festa hang from
the pole 01' the binary. effectively resistin g being "absorbed by history" and
the affects 01' representation , Phelan 's writing "mimics" that contingency
and negativity , promising a fulsome discursive marking of the " unmarked. "
130th writing and the booy actively access their incapacities, mediated by
"articulale eyes"14 whose enunciations are, as Butler would propose, " sub­
verted." Phelan celebrates the endstations orthe engines ofwriting and seeing,
otTering up. a political and performative, blindness and the unmarked. what
Reinelt has pointed out in Butler as " blind faith " in the eff'ects of subversion
as a radical potential. Phelan thus distinctly addresses the issues emanating
from the contestation between performance and writing. Yel she shifts con­
testation to homology , "rnimicry," insisting writing is both unlike and like
performance, when caught in the Symbolic web of Lacanian principIes. By
dis-abling both, she retains both in terms of one another.
Accordingly , " queer performativity" and its concomitant charge 01' essen­
tialism serve to bring together several different orders of isslles and to reflect
anxieties around several diffen:nt key points: self.. referentiality has overcome
an argument that .vould set determiJling referents outside its O\\'n syrnbolic
system , identity and visibility politics have been replaced with unmarked
interpellations into sueh sym bohc systems. and the body and the order 01' lhe
visible have been subsumed by writing ano the order 01' prinl. "Queer per­
l'ormativity," in withdrawing from these arguments has not only evacuated
the sites for certain debates but has successfully isolated the various elements
from one another.
Accompanying these absorptive strategies, is the alteration in the critical
st udy 01' performance rrol11 a perspective based on the practice to one based
on its reception. Hart, Phelan , and others, actually write out the position 01'
Ihe spectator. For those versed in the history of critical writing on perform­
ance in this century, the shift is a crucial one. The early exemplars of perform­
ance criticism were written by practitioners, with an eye toward produclion:
Antonin Artaud 's Theulre uml/ls Douhle , Peter Brooks' s Thc Emply Spu('c,
(irotowski's J/1e POOl' Thealer , Herbert Blau's 111e ImfJossihlr: Thealer , and
01' course. the critical works of Bertolt Brecht and Heiner M üller. Each prac­
litioner imagined Ihe ground of the theatre in terms of how it embodied the
agonislic positions. appearances. and gestures of their communities or 01'
llu.:ir hislo rica l. social m oments. Artaud went in sean;h 01' collective enaclmen ts
lo l1a li nese a lld T arahuma ril IlI dian ri tual prHclices in order to discover the
tllas,",s lll' Ihl.' ago ll hc twccn 1111.' P\!fccpl lhlc ¡¡ nd Ihe imperceptible: the theatre
I~ I

anJ its lIlet a-Jollhl \!. BI;¡u prtldll ~·(.·d lit,' 1....1 liS slagillg 01' Wllitillg .tiJl'
Godot in San QU\.!l1tin lO be ac tcd hy all Il1vest\.!d cOlllll1l1l1ity. Brc\.!ht in­
ven ted the geslUs--d evelopeJ stagc positiollS, crosses and proximitics as
maps of social re1ations . The crucial JilTercnce these works hold against
performativity resides in the assignation of power into agonistic roles - lhe
Jeliberations of its partitions through characters and spatial rc1 ations anJ
the a bsorption of it into the arena of the spectator-- the singular envelope to
which it is addressed.
As the agonistic collective fades away , in its performance traditions and in
critical reception , the rise of the individual may be seen as part of the victory
of advanceJ capitalism and its market strategy. Private property is celebratcd
in a new way. Rather than individual ownership, in the traditi onal sen se,
of something olltside oncsclf, the self has been amplified across the terrain
of what was once an " outside " to tlna11y encompass a11 property within its
subjectivity. In the rise 01' the individual as the theatre, and the conAation 01'
audience member with performer, the private individual has become the
arena 01' the publico For example, the desire for the new-individualist stage is
manifested in the prominence orthe work of Anna Deveare Smith.lndividual
performance representing diffcrent ethnic communities in crisis secms to be
the form most acceptable to contemporary audiences for those debates.
Thesc inversions of social values regarding performance reinstate several
materialist concerns. Does this intimate that it is a capitalist project to locate
the book as performative? Are corporate, institutional structures of owner­
ship marked in the "unmarked?" Do categories such as "queer" protect
corporate forms of profit-taking by emulating them'?
To wafd a ,.etm-fe-V;S;Oll
Sti11 too young to play the blind Tiresias, too butch to accept the role of
the dumb Cassandra , too self-critical to produce critique as prophesy , and
too wary for blind faith , I remain unpersuaded by these latter day uses of
queer performativity that semiotic sublations ol' the material and historical ,
written across bodiless , discursive representations of sexual practicc better
serve what used to be called the politica\. Further, the return of the repressed
contradicts the very move to discourse. For writing, empowered by these
stratcgies , is only emphatic in the dying scene 01' print culture - the melo­
dramél 01' the psychoanalytic. Despitc its Senccan stagings, writing is giving
way to the rcgime 01' the visible within the its very engine--- its own techno­
I(lgy . As writing splays across the computer screcn , the realm in which new
rorms ofcorporate, global economies inscribe thcir logos, its script is admitted
illto the reprcsentational space through ü.:onic windows. Wi thdruw ll from
snl:iul signiliers in to its own na.rcissisl ic <.lilieOllrS¡;. it Tlcvertheless wrilcl> aeross
Ih e t\!ChIl OSl:reCIl 01' va lue and virtual sm:iu lily As wriling has lu rn¡;d in 011
il sd r, exer ll.!d ils prowcss agai ns t Ihe li ve lI lId 111(' IIlal\!rial. ils gw unu. o nce
I ~· I
1' l!lt l ,llI(I\! I N I , II S III ¡\N IN 1'11 1, SI'¡\('t: 01; 11 CII NOI.O( ;Y
Ihe page. 11t1s IwclI slipped out fWIll under it llnto the network- the e1ectronic
spaee 01' new eapitall'ormations.
Againstthis electron ic. corporatc backdrop, then , hopefully, a retro version
(Ir "performing lesbian " can better work to revivify the dying political "body."
Fulsollle, rathcr than empty, with substance. situatcd within the material ,
rc-con nccted to outside rcferents, quivering in a new version of " Iive" Aesh ,
rec1aiming the visible, and set on a course in sync with political activism, this
conjllnction may press on past the attack of the queer performative into a
consideration that admits its virtual , electronic ground. But nrst, as is its
tradition. some sense ofthe historical moment orits demise amI displacement
may c1arify what must be accommodated in order to reconstitute itself.
The critical anxiety set off by the fall of the wall , whieh capped the erosion
of the grounds of the M arxist, or postMarxist materialist critique dispatchcd
several strategies into exile. While eurocommunism, particular1y in F rance,
continued to be ratified in intellectual circ1es, Althusser, Baudrillard and
Foucault could argue for continuing adjustments 01' the notion 01' the subject
as within the Illaterialist critique amI its social, activist movement. When the
framework of such a dialectic fell a\Vay, when the terms 01' the debate were
no longer ratified bccallse of the seeming failure of such a critique in the
historical moment of the late 1980s and early 1990s, strategies concerning
the subject sought to distinguish their critical, political operations from the
failures ofsocialist , Marxist practice. An ambivalence, an anxiety blocked the
bridge between theoretical, critical systems and activism- a bridge that had
been mandated in Marxist/materialist systems. Withdrawin g the rem nants
of postMarxist theory from the nov,'-collapsed practice , the deploymen t o
outside referents collapsed into se1f-referentiality. In his " Cultural Studies
and its Theoretical Legacies ," StLlart Ilall poignantly traces of the coJ1apse 01'
such a bridge out 01' the system and continues to insist upon it:
What decentered and dislocated the sett1cd path 01' the Centre for
Contemporary Cultural Studies certainly , and British cultural stLld­
ies to sorne extent in general, is what is sOl11etimes called " the lin­
guistic turn " : the discovery of discursivity, 01' textuality . ... unless
and until one respects the necessary displacement of culture, and yet
is al\Vays irritated by its failure to reconcile itself with other ques­
tions that Illattcr, with other questions that cannot and can never be
fully covered by critical textuality in its elaborations, cultural studies
as a projcct. an intervention , remains complete.'s
Similarly, rcminist critical theory began to withdraw from its 1970s neces­
sary link lO grussroots , activist agcm.1as, wh ich, if not ideological1y ma terial­
ist. wc rc engageJ in social cha ngc . Lcshian theory , on its way to quccr theory,
~iIl ll ght lO d isli nguis h itsc1f rmm lInOs Icshi' lll rcmin ist a gl:nJas, with thcir
idcnt ity óllld visi hil ity p~)liti es. '1 JI!.: dló ll .·~· !lf cssl'lIlialislll bl ocked thc majO!'
l ·· ·.
 1 111", N r1I \' ,\ N 11 J" I ''¡ I 1
IlIwlIgll wlIy r nm l 11I1:\)ry lo wllal Ia; ,d hll" 1..'1111.11111 1\'" as pra ~ li ~c . Imllill)';
IhcorCIical a rg u IIlCII Is lO sI ra Icgics I 11 ~I!tIl .rh: .1 i ii 111 '> UI'II as o Vl: rJclcnnina IiOIl
or excess. Positing c~onOlllic clmdililms sudl as dass o p prcssio n bccalllc
impossible to accommodate , as they call et.l ror lhal rdercnl nulsiJe lhe
system . Capitalism could not, dTectivcly, be introduced as a concepl. In
Maleria!isl Feminism amI lhe Pvlilics vI Discourse, Rosemary I-1ennessey
traces this withdrawal through the effects of Foucau lt, Laclau a nd Mouffe.
ami the charge of essentialism. Yet, she notes that the very project crea tes
strategies in consonance with global capitalism. installing
a decentered , fragmented , porous subject .. , better equipped for the
heightened alienation 01' late capitalism's refincd divisions of labor,
more readily disciplined by a pandemic corporate state, and more
available to a broad nexus 01' ideological controls. '6
One of the signature structures of lesbia n feminism, as of the Marxist
tradition, was the eollective. 80th posited a challenge to capitalist structures
through notions of eollective ownership and social practice. 11' the east bloc
fell to successful global capitalism, lesbian rood collectives, bookstore collect­
ives, living collectives, theatre collectives have fallen to traditional capitalist
practices. New "postmodern lesbian " or queer articles trace the way in which
capitalist projects have appropriated such abandoned terriLories for their
own uses. Sasha Torres's sen se of the " prime time lesbian," and Danae
Clark 's " Commodity Lesbianism" describe the media's and market's uses
of the terms. Whilc I would contend that this commoditication is the result
of the queer retreat. sorne of the postmodern protectors would , as Robyn
Wiegman has done, fault identity politics for it, arguing that "it is along the
modemist axis of self-assertion and visibility that both a lesbian consumer
market and a marketed commodity repeatedly named leshian has been
achieved.'»7 Yel. in the face of such high capitalist aggressivity , these authors
can offer only celebrations of commodification , 01', as above, isolated strat­
egies 01' subversion. In particular, " subversive shopping" has been formulated
as an apt action within the commodified realm, It is difficult to perccive,
finall y, wh at is subversive in buying the semiotized version oflesbian that ad
campaigns have developed.
Thus, the critique ofthe commodified lesbian , cut offrrom any program of
change--in isolation- - actually promotes commodification . The evacuation
01' the outside referent has effectively coupled the body and thc materialist
critique only to give them over to , as Reinelt has pointed out. the hegemon ic
practices that endurc in the codeso The new "queer dyke" thus appears as
commodity felishist- the dildoed dy ke who Illakes 01' her:-;clf an ad as pol­
itics. Wha t rcmains is mapping Lhe exact ro ulc o f' Ihe rctrca l Ih rough
decon str ucti ve c ritiq ues. Mc,U1 wh ilc, lhe COll ll S i \~1 1 Wil lll'l \ll!al GlpilalisL uses
01' slIch slra lcl.!.ics. as notcd by Il c n n~ssy ¡¡ b\IVC (1 1 0 1 1I:al ill tlal a ).!.cn da~, sli ll
l 'lfl
111 ' I 1: t' 11 N 111 () ( i ,
n: lI1a in IIl1 lcslt:d A s lile .:ritiqlll: wilhd ra ws I'mlll !1ot;ons 01' cOllllllunities,
01' slIhcllllllI'CS illlll sCllliotizcd slippagc arnong market slrategies. it often
becomcs wllal il sccks to critique .
As illustrated in thc preced ing argulllents, there is an axis along th e
abandonment 01' the terlll "lesbian " in its currency, in its dass operations, in
ils il1lperialist uses, and the body, as a subject-susped, whieh must be deaned
away by words. "Queer perforlllativity" thus runs the " race into theory "
a\Vay from the site 01' material intervention. Sagri Dh air yam, in "Raci ng the
Lesbian , Dodging White Critics" notes that
lhe rubric 01' queer theory , which couples sexuality and theory and
collapses lesbian and gay sexualities, tends to effect a slippage of
body into mind : the monstrously feminized body's sensual evoca­
tions 01' slllelL fluid , and hidden vaginal spaces with which the name
resonates are deanscd , descxua lized into a "queerness" where the
body yields to intcllect. and a spectrum ofsexualities again denies the
lesbian center stagc. lR
The challenge of the " live" body needs to be deaned up by the semiotic
cfficiency of theory. 8ut ho\V do all 01' these theories happen to conjoin with
the rise 01' global capitalislll, the new tcchno-era and the cOllling supremacy
01' the computer screen?
The end of print culture
Tho contest between two orders, previously perceived as alpha be tic a nd
visual, but technologically represented by print and the scrcen has run through­
out the twentieth century. Print and the screen have organized their own
cultures- their own virtual communities. The two technologies produce
their own structures of value . In fact , one could trace cultural production in
lhe twentieth century through a history of their relationship, through Dada
and Puturislll , Benjamin and 8recht, feminist critical theory and film. Th e
Narne o/ lhe Rose, by the serniotician Umberto Eco , could be read as
lhe narrativization 01' this current print/image struggle, masquerading in the
robcs of medieval monks. Whereas these two orders have traditionally run
Iheir separate courses, challenging one another by differcnce, the coming
dominance 01' the computer as the new engine of writing has finally assigned
print to the screen. The victory of the screen , accompanying the victory of
glohal capitalism and the new virtual construction 01' social and economic
practiccs yiclds a variety of consequences.
!lce screencu. the manners of print culture are forcgrounded:
"ri n l rc prcsc nls a Jccisill ll pI' 'iCVC rc abstractio!l and su btTaction. AII
nonl ill c;1I sil!.l1als tire fillcl\:d OUI: ~;llh )f is ban ncu for seri o us texts;
 I n l N 1 11 , . •\ .NU 1' 11 11 S lll, l
lypograph ica l \.:Pllsl:tllls a 1'1': ri gc)I ()II ~ l y ~' lIl n l u 'd. S il 11 lid is pros\.:ribed ;
evcn lhc taclilily 01' visual clahOfi.llion is llU II:lwL"lL !'rilll is an ael 01'
perceptual self-Jenial. ... Nol the lea sl irn pliealioll ofdcctronic text
for rheto ric is how the implicit self-Jeniab 01" thc p rill t conlracl are
being renegotiateJ .-\9
Not surprisingly, then , the attributes of print culture suit those of the various
strategies JescribeJ above. The panic con\.:erning the role of writing since
Jeconstruction , on the one hand , and French feminist theory , on the other,
involves tbese many different kinJs 01' values. If one plat:es writing abou t
writing against this challenge by the screen, the ground of the debates is
changed , In fact , it seems to be somehow emulating those very attributes it
has exciseJ from its culture.
Writing has been deconstructed by writing itself as a way to keep writing.
Some deconstructive writing sought to enhance its culture by encouraging
experiments which would illustrate spatial coincidences in writing, reading,
and the academic performances of both. lacques Derrida, in many 01' his
works, such as C/as, or "The DOllble Session." in DissemilJaliolJ, plays with
the black/white register of print, its spatial organization and performance:
These ron the recto pagel quotations on the blackboard are to be
pointed at in silence. So that, whi1e reaJing a text already written in
black and white, I can count on a certain across-the-boarJ inJex
standing a1l the while behind me, white on black .4l'
The interplay between new technologies and the "alphabetic culture" (as
Grcgory Ulmer terms it) 01' philosophical traditions has brollght innova­
Iions to print by such authors as Avital Rone1l , who, upon writing on the
plrilosophical contiguities 01' te1ephone, the precursor of online virtualit­
ics , arranged her print in varying columnar, diagonal, spatial relatio.ns,
1'1I!'lhe!' eomplicated by various styles of print, print sizes, line spacings, etc.
A:; Ihe "textual operators" instruct, in the opening page of Tite Te/eph une
/look:
Your mission, should yOll choose to aecept il, is to learn to read
wilh your ears. In addition to listening for the telephone. you are
being asked to tune your ear .. . to the inflated reserves of random
indetenninateness ... stay open to the static and interference that
will oecupy these lines .... At first yO Ll may find the way Ihe book
run s t.o be disturbing, but we ha ve had lo brea k up ils logic
Iypographically.... T o cra ck open lhe clos ura l sovc rc ign ly 01' lhe
Boo k, \vc ha ve I"cigncd s ilencc an d disco nllccl ioll . . , , /JI/' 1'l'!c-pllOl1e
[JI/ok rclcascs Ihe d k l.!l (11" an clcctn1nic-lihid !llal n o\V II s¡ Uf tYPl)­
Itnl phy lo Inmk Illl' in ilialioll ul' IIl lc rn l "'\:~ "
,.1.·',.,
I'l ltl!(I II M I N c: 1 ISIII ¡\ N I N I 111 SI' ¡\('h 01' 1'1':( JlNOL ( )( ; Y
Luce l riga ray CI iliqllcs nol ol1ly the linear elreel orwri ting, but the organ­
i/alion 01' pages. amI lhe play 01' vertical and horizontal as inseriptions of
gendcrcJ , hetero-social constructs. In "The Power ofDiscourse," she calls for
lhe disruplion of the "recto-verso structure that shores up common sense,"
asserting that:
we need to proeeed in sueh a way th at linear reading is no longer
possible: that is , the retroactive ¡mpael of the end of eachword ,
utteranee. 01' sentence upon its beginning must be taken i.nlo con­
sideration in order to undo the power ofits teleological effect. .. . Thal
would hold gooJ also for the opposition between structures of
horizontality and vertieality that are work in language.42
While these authors were leaJ from the nature of their critique to the
material production of print, radical alterations in the teehnology oC writing
itself, caused by the widespread adoption 01' the eomputer, have encouraged
authors and publishers to experiment in print forms closer to the functions of
data and print management which these new engines ofinseription perform .'ll
The multi-colored , icon-ridden print of MOlldo 20()(): A User's Cuide lo lhe
NelV Edge simulates the interactive sereen. The new praetice of co-producing
a print text with a hypertext , as in l a y David Bolton's Wriling Space, or
George P. Landow's H yperl exl, encourages either the page [o emulate the
computer's sereenic funetions in print, or the print forms of pages and t he
sequential development of ideas on the computcr.
This play between the sequential and multiple, branehing arrangements
of information is now being staged on the eomputer screen. The printeJ page.
by the nature ofits technology, enforces the sequential dcvclopment 01' ideas;
while the computer screen offers multiple arrangemcnts 01' data, allowing the
reader to form the development of material s in a multitude 01' ways. kon
mandalas at the beginnings of hype rlext novel s, as in Stuart Moulthrop's
Viclory Carden , (illustration) olTer a topography 01' episodes, whieh the
reader may link in several Jifferent patte rns . Readin g this electronic novel
resembJes, more, wandering in a maze than adhering to the sequenee of
pages.
GendcT and sexual praetices, has Irigaray has noted , have long been in­
scribed in the seq L1ential architccture of meaning. The linear prescription was
ali gned wilh gcnderdifICrence and the institution ofheterosexual marriage as
~~a rly as the myth 01' J\riadne and the minotaur. Ariadne's thread translated
the maze into lhe line. leading both to the conquest of the minotaur and her
ownlll ll rrillge. What was th e Minotaur, part animal, part human, but a ki nd
(Ir scx-rad ia ting eyho rg'? T he laby rin th . 01' maze, a mappin g enabled by and
!lll)rC u ppr~)pria lc lO \.:om putc: r wr ilin g lhan lbe c11lulation of pages. th us,
h rin g.s liS haá Iu Ihal ca dy M illO,lll Ih n;;'11 ilI' O the r, eivi lized by the linear
1 I.'l:hll \lI \l).!i l..:~ 11 1' 1l11':tning.
1'1 11
 II JI N 'II T'\' ¡\ 'N 1) 1 11 1. :~ I( i-I l' 1 tt 1 t) 1{ ~1 I NI, I , :,,1 1,\ N 1 N I II Il ~ " " « 1~ P I ' '\' I~ (' ti N ( ) I (H j \'

Wllal is prolllpl~U by Ih is Il'dI 1l1 1Iog> I~ 11 dli lll pl' ill lile l~rl1ls nI' politica l 2.1 I bId .• 1.
24 Lylllla lI arl , " h kn til y and Scduclio n: Lcs bians in the Ma instrcam." in Ae/in,!!.
analysis rrom tllose 01' time, wllich Jct\!rtní lll: l ile h istorie:!1 critiquc. lo llwsc 011/: ¡~'lIIilli.l'/ I'('/Ior/l'/al/c(,s, ed. Hart ami Peggy Phelan (A nn I\rbor: Un ivcrs it y
of s pace what is callcu th e Hew geog rap hy u r lile lopological critiquc. As I 01' Michigall , 19(3), 124.
havc noted elsewhere. gcncratíonallllodels do not serve the lesbian agenda. 25 [bid .. 128 .
Homosexual, a considera tion ofsa meness, may lend ilselfbe tter to n o tions 01' 26 (bid.
s p ace than time. Certainly , as som e late r French Marxi sts argued , includin g 27 Peggy Phelan , Ul1Il1arked: TI/e Polilic.l' oI Pe/jimn ance (Ne w Yor k: Ro utl edge ,
Henri Lefebvrc and Michel F o ucault, the correction ofthe crit iq ue fro m time 1(93 ).148.
28 Ibid.
to s pace s uits th e new politics of urba n planning, space exploration, ami , 29 [bid.
finall y, 1 would ad d th e c o m ing of virtual reality. 30 lbid.
Ins isti ng upon " performin g lesbia n ," then . mi g ht b e constituted as with in 3 1 Ibid ., ISO- 51.
the regime of th e visible, a certain occupation o f space, within the politics 01' 32 Ibid .. 152.
space- a scree ning d ev ice that somehow rctains th e bod y, the flesh , the " 1ive" 33 lbid , 165.
34 Ibid. , 158.
in tandem with tcchn o logy , a nd c1aims visibility through its unique operations. 35 Stuart Hall , "Cultural Sludies a nd ils Theoretical Legacies," in Cultural Swdies,
[Part " of thi s cssay will appear in Theatre J o urnal Oclober, 1995.- E d.] ed. Lawrence Grossberg. Ca ry Nc1son . an d Paul a T reic hler (New York: Ro utl edge,
19(2) . 283--84.
36 Roselllary Hennessy, !v/aleriolis/ Feminism and /he Po/ilics 0./ Discourse (New
Notes Yo rk : R oullcdgc, [ (93), 9.
37 R oby n Wicgman , " Introducti o n: M appin g the Postlll ode rn ," in The Leshiall
The Ba nana Republic ud was re printcd in thc a rticle "Lesb ian chi c: the bold, brave Pos//l/ odern. ed . Laura D oa n (New York: Col um bia U ni versit y Prcss. 1(94) , 10.
ncw world of gay women," NC:lll Y()rk 26 (May 10. 19(3): 33. The K. D. Lang 38 Sagri Dhair yam . " R ac in g the Lesbian. Dod ging White Crit ics," in Th e Lesbi(//{
cover appea red in Vanily Fair 56 (Aug ust 19(3). Posll11odel'l1. 30.
2 Teresa de Lauretis, "The Essence o fthe Triangle o r, Taking the Ri sk 01' Essential­ 39 Ri cha rd A. Lanham , The Elect/'ollic Wo/'d: De/11ocraey. Technology. une! /he Arts
ism Seriously: Feminist Thcory in h a ly. the U.S .. alld Britain," DiJlerel1ce.l': A (C hica go : lJniversity 01' C hica go Press, 1993), 74 .
j(Jumal of Feminis/ Cull.urol S/udie.\· 1 ( 1989): 4- 5. 40 Ja cq ues Derrida. " The Do uble Session ," in Dissemina/ion_t ranso Barbara Jo hn son
3 Ibid ., 12.
(Chica go: University o fChi cago Press , 1(8 1). 177.
4 Ibid ., 32.
41 Avital Rone ll , The Telep/¡ol1e Book (Linco ln : U ni ve rsit y 01' Nebrask a Press. 1989).
5 Eve Koso fsky Sedgwiek , "Q ueer Perforrniti vity : Hen ry Ja mes's The Au 0./ lhe
opening page .
No\'el." glq: (J j ou/'Ilal a./ leshian ((/1(1 gay s/udies I ( 1993): l . 42 Luce I rigell'ay, "The Powe r 01' Discou rse:' Thi.l' Sex Which Is No/ Ol/e , trans o
6 Ibid ., 2. Ca theri ne P orte r (lthaca: Co rnell University Press . 1985) , 80.
7 See the inlroducti o n lO InsideIOu/ : Leshiol1 T/¡cories. Cay Theories, ed. Diana Puss 43 Gregory lJlmer suggcsts Ihat " Derrida' , texts .. . a lrea d y reftect a n inlcrnaliwtioll
(New Yo rk and London: R o ull ed ge, 1(9 1).
of the electron ic media. " Quoted in M ar k Poster. Th e Mode ¡¡./ In/a nuo/ion: Pos/­
8 Judith Butler, "Critieally Queer," glq 1(1993): 17.
.I'uhordinalion amI Social Con/ex / (Chieago: U niversity of Chicago, 1990), 100.
9 [bid ., 28.

10 Ibid. , 18.

II Judilh Buller, " Imitation a nd Gender Insubo rdin a lio n," Puss, 14 - 15 .

12 (bid .. 24.

13 Butler, "Crilica ll y Quee r," 17.

14 (bid ., 18.

15 Aristotle, AletaphY.I'ics. Th e Bl/sic Works or Aris/o/le. ed. Richard McKeon (New

York: Ra nd om H o use. 194 1). 1071 a 14- 18.

16 (bid .. [072b 19- 22 . 1074b 34- 36.
17 Butler, " Imital ion and Gcnder Insubo rdinat ion ," 28.
18 [bid .. 24.
19 Butler, "Critically Quee r," 29.
20 'The body you want." interview with Judith Butler. Art/t) rUII1 31 (No \'cmbe r,
1(92) .
21 See Larissa Mac Farquhar, " Pu tting the Calllp Back inh' \ ; 1111 p us," LiIlJ.!,//o ¡ ;¡'(///('{/
3 (Scpt.-Oct. 1(93): <; 7.
22 .Ianelle Rcinclt. "St:I¡!í ng the Invis ihle: 1 he ( n ~¡., n i VI, d.jli l V ill T h\:at ri cal Rcp­
rCSClllati o ll ." 'lí' \'! éllI" p,'/:fi J/'l/lilllC'<' Qllor/,.,.h ' 1,1 11 '1') I1 '

1(1/1 11,J
 Part 2

VI SUAL ART A ND
PE RFO RM A NC E ART
 I 1 /.\'110 / , /"

75
ART ANO OBJECTHOOO

J\1ichael Fried

Sourcc: Arl/órum 5(10) (1967): 12 23_

In this essay Michael Fried eriticizes Minimal Art·· or as he

calls it, " Iiteralist" art- for what he describes as its ,i nherent
theatricality_ At the same time , he argues that the modernist
arts, including painting and sculpture, have come increasingly
to dcpcnd ror their very continuance on their ability to de/eat
thcatre. Fried charactcrizes the theatrical in terms of a particu­
lar relation between the beholder as suhject and the work as
oh/ecl, a relation that takes place in time, that has durati on .
Whercas defeating theatrc entails dcfeating or suspending both
objecthood and ternporality.
Fried was born in New York City in 1939. He took his B.A.
at Princeton Universi ty a nd was a R hodcs Scholar at Merton
College, Oxford. He is a Contributing Editor for Anforul11, and
he organized the Three American Pain/ers exhibition al the
Fogg Art Museum , Harvard University, in 1965. He is cur­
rentlya Junior Fell ow in the I Iarvard Society of Fellows.

Edwards's journals frequently explored and tested a meditation he seldom

allowed to reaeh print; if all the world werc annihilated, he wrote ... and a
new \Vorld \Vere freshly created , though it were to exist in every particular in
the same manner as this \Vorld, it would 110t be the same. Thererore, because
there is continuity, which is time, "it is certain with me that lhe world exists
allcw evury moment; that the existence 01' things every moment eeases and is
cvcry mOl1lcIll rcnewed." The abiding assurance is that " we every moment sce
1hc salllc proof 01' a God as we should have seen ifwe had seen Hilll create the
world al lirsL" Perry Miller, J onat!Jall Edwards

Ir.
 \ lo" " 1\ 1; 1\ I~ J I" '" l ' P, 11 1- 1 "1 1\ 1 ( \ n /l. 1; 1\ I~ · I '\ I~ 1 1\ N JI 11 11 .1111, 1 11 I 11 , I 1

I';iilllill g IS hC I,' "ct~ 1l as ;111 ,Irl un lhe VClgé 0 1 ~ .\ hallslÍ()lI. lllll: in which lhe
ra llgc l ll" an:c rl<l blc solulions lo a basic pr" hlclII how to organize lhe sur­
The entcrp risc knuwn vari o lls ly as Mín imal I\r l A B( ' Arl. I)ri ma ry Slruc­
I"acc 01" lhc picturc is scvcrdy rcslricted. The use 01' shaped rather than
tures. amI Spccilk Objccts is largdy iucolllgicóJ l. 11 scc ks lo úeclare a nú
rcctallgular SUpplHtS l:an , from the literalist point ofview, merely prolong the
occupy a positi on- one that ca n be rormula tcd in worús, a nú in 1~lct has
agony . Thc obvious response is to give up working on a single plane in favor
been formolated by sorne of its leading practitioners. If this d istinguishes
01' threl' dimensions. Tltat, moreover, automaticaJly
it from modernist painting a mI sculpture on the one han d , it also marks
an im portant difference between Minimal Art- or, as I prefer to call iL
gets rid of the problem of illusionism and of literal space, space in
lileralisl art- and Pop or Op Art on the other. From its inception, literalist
amI a ro und marks and colors-which is riddance of one of the
art has amounted to something more than an episode in the history of taste.
salient amI most objel:tionable re1ics of E uropeéLll art o The several
It belongs rather to the history--almost the ¡¡({/lIral history of sensib­
limits of painting are no longer present. A work l:an be as powerful
ility : anu it is not a n isolated episode but the expression of a general amI
as it can be thought to be. Actual space is intrin sicaJl y more powerful
pervasive cond ition. Its seriousness is vouehed for by the fact that it is in
and specific than paint on aftat surface.
relation both to modernist painting amI modernist sculptur e that Iiterali st
art uefines or locates the position it aspires to occupy. (This, 1 suggest, is
The literalist attitude toward sculpture is more ambiguous. Judd , for
what makes what it declares something that deserves to be calJed a position.)
cxamplc, seems to think of what he calls Sp ecifi c Objects as something other
Specifically, literalist art conceives of itself as neither one nor the other; on
than sculpture, while Robert Morris conceives of his own unmistakably
the contrary, it is motivated by specific reservations , or worse . about both;
literalist work as resuming the lapsed tradition of C onstructivist sculpture
anu it aspires, perhaps not exaetly, or not immediately, to displace them .
established by Tatlin, Rodchenko, Gabo, Pevsner, anu Vantongerloo. But
but in any case to establish itself as an independent art on a footing witb
this and other disagreements are less important than the views Judd a nd
either.
Morris hold in common. Above all they are opposed to seulpture that, Ji kc
The literalist casc again st painting rests mainly on two counts: the rela­
most painting, is "made part by par!, by addition , composed" and in which
tional eharacter of almost all painting; and the ubiq uitousness, indeed the
" specific elements ... separate from the whole, thus setting up relationships
virtual inescapability, of pictorial illusion . In Donald Judd 's view,
within the work. " (They would inelude the work of David Smith and An th ony
Caro under this deseription.) It is worth remarking that the "part-by-par t"
when you start relating parts, in the flrst place, you' re assuming you
and " relational " character ofmost sculpture is associated by Judd wi th what
have a vague wholc - the rectangJc of the cclllvas- and definite parts,
he calls anlhropon7orphislIl : " A beam thrusts ; a pieee ofiron follows a gesture;
which is all screwed up , beca use you should have a deflnite 1t'¡101e and
together they form a natura,listic a nd anthro pomorphic image. The space
maybe no parts, or very few. 1
corresponds. " Against such " multipart, inflected " sculpture Judd and M orris
assert the values 01' wholeness, singleness, and indivisibility--of a work's
The more the shape of the support is emphasized, as in recent m odernist
being, as nearly as possiblc, " one thing," a single " Specific Object. " Morris
painting, the tighter the situation becomes:
devotes considerable attention to "the use of strong gestalt or of unitary-type
forms to avoid divisiveness "; whilc Judd is chiefly interested in the kind of
The elcments inside the rectanglc are broad and simple amI corres­
wholeness that can be achieved through the repetition of identical units . The
pond closely to the reetangle. The shapes and sUIÚce are only those
order at work in his pieces, as he once remarked of that in Stella's stripe
that can occur plausibly within amI on a rectangular plane. The pa rts
paintings, "is simply order, like that 01' continuity, one thing after another."
are few amI so subordinate to unity as not to be parts in an ordinary
For both Judd amI Morris , however, the critical factor is slwpe. Morris 's
sense. A painting is ncarly an entity, one thing, and not the inde­
"unitary forms" are polyhedrons that resist being grasped other than as a
finable sum of él group of entities and references. The one thing
single shape: the gestalt simply is the "constant, known shape." AmI shape
overpowers the earlier painting. It also establishes the rectangl e as a
ilself is, in his system, "the most important sculptural value." Simila rl y
definite form; it is no longer a fairly neutrallimit. A form can be lIsed
spca king 01' his own work, J udd has remarked that
only in so man y \Vays. The rectangular plane is given a lile spa n. The
simplicilY reqllired lO emphas.ize lhe re<.:lungk li mi ls llt el:lrra nge­
tite big r rn blclll is lha l ,Inyth ing Ihal is not absolutely plain begins
Illcnts possibl e within i1.
lo It a ve parls in somc way , T It ~, Ihi ng is lo he able to w()rk amI do

I ()(I 1(1
 VI"¡lIA I 1\((1' ¡\N í.!I 'P¡tj ,!I¡tM,\NU I: 1\ (( 1
dilTerell1 Ihings ami y~1 1101 I>r'c<l ~ 11 11 Ih~ wl l1 l k r ll's~ Ihal a picl.:c has.
T o me the piecc wil h Ihe nrass alld Ihl' li w "c ltiwls is above all
,1701 shape.
The shapc is the object: at any rate, what secures the wholeness orthe object
is the singleness of the shape. It is, \ believe, this emphasis on shapc that
aeco un ts for the impression , which n umerous critics have m en ti oned , thal
Judd 's and Morris's pieces are 17011011'.
11
Shape has also been central lO the 1110st important pamtmg of the past
seve ral years. In several recenl essays2 \ have tried to show how, in the work
of Noland, Olitski , and Stella, a conftict has gradually emerged between
shape as a fun d amental property of objects and shape as a medillm of
painting. ROllghly, the succcss or failure of a givcn painting has come to
depcnd on its ability to hold or stamp itself out or compel conviction as
shape- that, or somehow to stave off or elude the question of whether or
not it does so. O litski's early spray paintings are the purest example 01'
paintings that either hold or rail to hold as shapes; while in his more recent
pictures, as well as in the best of Noland 's and Stella's recent work, the
demand that a given picture hold as shape is sta ved off or eluded in various
ways. What is at stake in this conftict is whether the paintings or objects
in q uestion are experieneed as paintings or as objects: and what decides
their identity as painling is their confronting 01' the demand that they hold
as shapes. Otherwise they are experienced as nothing more than objeets.
This can be summed IIp by saying that modernist painting has come to find
it imperative that it defeat or suspend its own objecthood , and that the
crucial factor in this undertaking is shape, but shape that must belong to
pailllin¡;-·-it must be pietorial, not, or not merely, literal. Whereas liter­
alist art stakes everything on shape as a given property of objects, if not,
indeed, as a kind of object in its own right. Jt aspires, not to defeat or suspend
its own objecthood, but on the contrary to discover and project objecthood
as such.
In his essay "Recentness of Sculpture" Clement Greenberg discllsses the
effect of presence, which , from the star!, has becn associatcd \Vith literalist
\\'ork. ~ This comes up in connection \Vith the work of Anne Truitt, an artist
Greenberg believes antieipated the litcralists (he calls them M in imalists):
Truitt's arl did flirt with Ihe look of non-art , and her 1963 sh o w was
the first in wh ich 1 noticed how this loo k coukl cnnICr illI clrect of
reW:I1( ·c. T ha l p resencc as achieved thr ~)Ll g h ~i/c w;¡ ~ <1I!slhclica lly
C~lra nC() II l). 1 a lrcaJ y kncw. T lra l prcscllI':C as al"1 li l' Vl.:d Ihrollg h Ihe
look \Ir 11í1ll -;l1"I Wal> li ~l.:wi sc a C~l lr c til'all y 1.:'( 11 ,1I 1l.'O I I·; 1 dld no l yc l
IN<
.\I( 1 ¡\ N 11 (1 11 I H' '', ", 11 , "
knnw. " Iuít, '" ~("\llpl\ln: hall Ih is k ind or pl'l!SC I1Cl' bul did nol hill('
bd lÍl1ll ÍI. '1hal sculplun: could hide bc hinJ il jusl as painling did­
I found oul onl y arter repca lcd acquaintanec \Vith Minimal \Vorks 01'
cllt: .Il1dd's M orris's, And re' s, Sleiner's, some but not all of Smrithson 's,
sorne but nol all 01' LeWitt's. Minimal art can also hide behind
presence as size: 1 think of Bl aden (though I am not sure whether
he is a certified M inimalist) as \Vell as of some of the artists just
mentioned.
Presence can be conferrcd by si7.e or by the look uf non-art. Furthermorc,
what non-art means toda y, and has meant for several years , is fairly spe­
ciRco \n " After Abstract Expressionism" Greenberg wrote that " a stretched
or tacked-up can vas already exists as a picture- -thollgh not neccssarily as a
successjúl one. "4 For that reason, as he remarks in "Recentness of Sculpture, "
the " look ofnon-art \Vas no longcr available to painting." Instead , " the border­
line between art and non-cHt had to be sought in the three-dimensional, where
sClllpture was, and where everything material that was not art also \Vas."
Greenberg goes on to say:
The look of machinery is shunned now beca use it does not go far
enough to\Vards the look ofnon-art , which is presumably an "inerl"
look that offers the eye a minimum of " interesting" incident- unlike
the machine look , whieh is arty by eomparison (and when 1 think
of Tinguely \ would agree with this). Still, no matter how simple
the object may be, there remain the relations and interrelations 01'
surface, con tour, and spatial interval. Minimal works are reada b le
as art. as almost anything is today- - inc1uding a door, atable, or a
blank sheet ofpaper. ... Vet it would seem that a kind ofart nearer
the condition of non-art could not be envisaged or ideated at this
moment.
The meaning in this context of"the condition or non-art " is what 1 have been
calling objecthood. \t is as though objcethood alone can, in the present
circumstances, secure something's identity, ir not as non-art , at least as
ncither painting nor seulpture; or as though a work ofart- more accurately,
a work 01" m o dernist painting or sculptllre- were in some essential respect nol
(/11 ohjecI.
Therc is, in any case , a sharp contrast betwcen the literalist espousal 01"
objecthood- almos1, it seems, as an art in its own right- and modernist
painling.'s self-imposcd imperative that it dcfeat or suspend its own objecthood
Ihroug h the Im:diulll ofshapc. In rac\, from lhe perspective ofrecent Illodern­
isl pa in lin g., Ihe lilcralist position (>vinccs a sensibility not sim ply al ien but
alllil hclicall() ils ow n: as th ollgli . fru l11 Ilral perspective , the demands 01" art
allJ Ihe cllll dilioll'\ 0 1" objec lhnod ;m: in dir cd cnnllict.
11,'

1kl ~' IlIl' ques Lill1l :1 1iSl:.'I; Whill 1', 11 .~1111 11 1 IIhl" dlllll)\! :lS projeclcd :1 mi
IIvposl a lll.\.'d by lile Irklalisls 111;11 li la 1-. ," . 1\ . 1I "lI ly 11\1111 lhe perspcdivc 01"
n,:c\..'1l1 II ItH.lcrni'il pai nli ng. an lilhdicallo ;t rI'!
111
The answer 1 want to propose is this: the literalist espollsal of objecthood
alllounts lo nolhing other than a plea for a new genre of theatn: ; and lhealrc
is now tht: negalion 01' art.
Lileralist sensibility is theatrical beca use , to begin \Vith . it is concemed with
Ihe actual cin:umstances in which the beholder encounters literalist \York.
MO ITis llIakes this explicit. W hereas in previous art "what is lO be had from
Ihe wo rk is loeatcd strietly within [it] ," the experienee 01' literalist art is of an
Ilo jcct in a sill/alion--one that, virtua11y by dellnition , inc/udes Ihe beholder:
Tllc better new work takes relationships out 01' the \York and makes
I helll a funetion 01' space, light, and the viewer's field of visiono The
object is but one ofthe terms in the newer aesthetie. It is in sOllle way
morc reflexive beeause one's awareness 01' oneself existing in lhe
samc space as the work is stronger than in previous work, wilh its
many internal relationships. One is more aware than befo re that he
himsclf is establishing rclationships as he apprehends the object from
various positions and under varying conditions of light and spatial
eonlcxt.
Monis believes that this awareness is heightened by "the strength of the
Cllllstant, known shape, the gestalt," against whieh the appearanee of the
pieee frolll different points of view is eonstantly being eompared. Jt is inten­
sified also by the large seale of much literaJist \Vork:
Tht: awareness of seale is a funetion of lhe eomparison made be­
lween that eonstant. one ' s body size, and the objeet. Spaee between
the subjeet and the object is illlplied in sueh a eomparison .
Thc larger the objeet the more \Ve are foreed to keep our distance from it:
It is this neccssary, grcater distance 01' the objeet in spaee from our
bodies. in order that it be seen at a11, that struetures the nonpcrsona l
01' publie mode [which Monis advocates]. However. it is just this
dislance bctween object and subjeet that ereales a more extended
silllatioll, beeause physieaI partieipation bcco lllcs Jl~cssary .
r he 1I11.:atrica1i ty 01' Mn rris's notio n 01' llit: .. 'l\llIlwr ... ctflal or Pllblic molle"
St:l'IJIS ll hvlOilS: 1111.' 1;11 U': Jless o f lhc piel:c. iJll'lIl1 ¡i1l11111l1l \\1 11111, IJllllrt:lalionlll.
1/0
It 1 J\ N Il
lIJ1i I¡¡ry c ha l ,ld~' 1 • ,IJ,I'(tl//t'('S t he n.:ho lJe l Jl ulju'l' physie:.i1l y but psychicall y.
\1 is, onc lnight S¡¡y, preciscly lh il.i Jislallci ng th all/wkC'.I' the beholder a subjcet
ami the piccc in quc:-.liol1 ... an ohject. But it does not follow that the largcr
Ihe picee the more seeuJ'ely its "publie" charader is established; on the
contrary. "beyond a cerlain size the object can overwhelm and the gigantie
seale becomes the loaded term. " Monis wants to achieve presence through
objccth ood, whieh req uires a eertain largeness of scale, rather than through
size alone. But he is also aware that this distinction is anything but hard ami
fast:
For the space 01' the room itself is a structuring factor both in its
eubic shape and in terms of the kind 01' compression different sized
and proportioned rooms can effect upon the object-subjeet terms .
That the spaec of the room becomes of such importance does not
mean that an environmental situation is being established. The total
space is hopefully altered in certain desired ways by the presence 01'
the object. It is not controlled in the sense of being ordered by an
aggregate of objects or by some shaping 01' the spaee surrounding the
vlewer.
The object, not the beholder, must remain the eenter or focus orthe situation;
but the situation itself he/ongs 10 the beholder--it is hi,l' situation . O r as
Morris has remarked , "1 wish to emphasize that things are in a space with
oneself, rather than . .. [that] one is in a space surrounded by things." Again .
there is no clear or hard distinction between the two sta tes of affairs: one is.
afler all, alll'oys surrounded by things. But the things that are litcralist works
of art must somehow confi'ol11 the beholder- they must, one might almost
say, be placed not just in his spaee but in his \Vay , None of this, M o ni s
maintains ,
indicates a Iack of interest in the object itself. But the eoncerns no\-\'
are for more control of ... the entire situation . Control is necessary
if the variables 01' object, ¡ight, space. body, are to function. The
object has not become lcss important. It has mere\y become less
self-important.
It is , 1 think. worth remarking that "the entire situation" means exactly that:
(/1/ of it ineluding, it seems, the beholder's hody, There is nothing within his
field 01' vision- nothing that he takes note 01' in any way- that. as it were,
dcclares its irrckvance to the situation , ami therefore to the experienee. in
l]ucstion. On lhe contrary. ror something to be perceived at aIl is for it to be
pcru: iveJ :lO; pa rl nI' thal ~it U ~ll ioll. Everyt hing co un ts - not as part oC the
ohjcct, hll! as pa rt 01' the silua li oJl in which it:; objecthood is established and
011 ", bidl Iha! llhjcelhood al kasl part ly dqJl'mls.
17 1
 VI" I I A I A lt l ' ¡\NI -, IIJJI
IV
rurthermore, Ihe presenec 01" literalisl arL whil:h (, Icc llhcrg wu~ lhc lir~t lo
anal yze, is basieally a thcatrieal elreet 0 1' q ual ity a k1l1d \)I",I'/(/gl' presencc. II
is a function, not just of Ihe obtrusiveness a mI. olte n. evcn aggressi vcness o l'
literalist work, but 01' Ihe special cOl1lplicity that that work extorts 1"1'0111 the
beholder. Something is said to have presence when it demands that the
beholder ta ke it into aeeount, that he take it ,\·e,.ious~))-and when the fulfillment
of that demand eonsists simply in being all'{/re ol' it and. so l O speak, in aeting
accordingly . (Certain modes of seriousness are c10sed to the beholder by the
wor k itself, i. e., those established by the finest painting and sculpture 0 1' the
recent pas!. But, of course, Ihose are hardly modes 01' seriousness in which
most pcople feel at home, or that thcy even find tolerable.) Here again the
experience of being distaneed by the work in question seems crucial: the
beholder knows himsclf to stand in an indeterminate, open-ended- and
unexacling- - relalion as suhjccl to the impassive object on the wall or floor. In
fact, being dislanced by such objects is not, I suggest, entirely unlike being
distanced , or crowded , by Ihe silent presence of another pcrson; the expeli­
ence of coming upon literalist objects unex pectcdly-·-for example, in some­
what da rk ened rooms- can be strongly, if momentarily, disquieting in just
this way.
There are Ihree main reasons why this is so. First, the size of much liter­
alist work , as Morris's remarks imply, compares rairly c10sely with that al'
the human body. In this eontext Tony Smith's replies to questions about his
six -foot cube. Die, are highly suggestive:
Q: Why didn't you make it larger so that it wOllld 100m over the
observer'?
A: I \Vas not making a monument.
Q: Then why didn 'l you make it smaller so that the observer eould
see over Ihe 10p?
A: I \Vas nol making an objeet. 5
One way 01' deseribing what Smith Ivas making might be something likc
a surrogale person- that is , a kind of stall/e. (This reading finds support in
the eaption lo a photograph of another of Sl1lith 's pieees, The Black Bo.\:,
published in the Deeember 1967 issue of ArlfárwII, in which Samuel Wagsta rr,
Jr. , presumably with the artist's sanction. observed , "One can see the two­
by-fours under the piece, which keep it from appearing likc arehitecture or
a monument , and set it off as sculpture." The two-by-fours are. in effect, a
rudimentary pedestal, and thereby reinforce the statue-l ike quatily 01' lhe
pieee.) Seco nd . the en tilics o r beings encounlcred in cVl!ryuay expcrience in
terms that most c10sely approach lhe lileralist id c¡ li s \Ir t hc lIoll rl:!a lio nal. Ihe
unita ry antl the wlloli st ic a re o/II<' /' 1'('/'.1'(11/.\', Silllila rl y ,h~' 11 11'1 al i!'jl prl!Jitecl io n
, '/,!'
,\ J( 1 ¡\ N 1I 1111 ' 1 I 1 11. 11 111
fuI' sy llllllctry . a nd 111 gelleral fur a kind 01" urder lhat "is simply mder ... one
lhing arter a nolhl!r, " is moted. nol , as Judd sccms lo hclicve, in new philo­
snphical a nd seic ntilie principies. whatcver he takes these to be, but in l1alUre.
And third, the apparent hollowlless of most litcralist work the quality of
having an il1side - is almost blatantly anthropomorphic. It js, as numerous
commentators have rel1larked approvingly, as though the work in question
has an inner, even secret, lil'c- an effect that is perhaps made most explicit
in Morris's Unlitled (1965- 66), a large ringlike form in two ha lves, with
fluorescent light glowing from within at the narrow gap bctween the two. In
the same spiril Tony Smith has said. 'Tm interestcd in the inserutability and
mysteriousness of the thing. "(' tle has al so been quoted as saying:
More and more I've become interested in pneumatic strllctures.
In these, all of the material is in tension. But it is the charactcr of the
form that appeals to me. The biomorphie forms that result from the
construetion have a dreamlike quality for me, at least like what is
said to be a fairly eommon type 01' American dream.
Smith's inlerest in pneumatic structures may seem surprising, but it is consist­
ent both with his own \Vork and with literalist sensibility generally. Pneumatic
structures can be deseribed as hollow with a vengeance- -Ihe faet that they are
not " obdurate, solid masses" (Morris) being il1sÍ.\'led 0/1 instead of taken for
granted. And it reveals something, I think. about what hollowness means
in lileralist art that the forms thal result are " biomorphie."
v
I am suggesting, then, that a kind 01' latent or hidden naturalism. ind eed
anlhropomorphism. lies at the core 01' literalist theory and praetice. The
eoncept ofpresence all bu! says as much , though rarely so nakedly as in Tony
Smith's statement. " 1 didn ' t think of them (i.e., the seulptures he " always "
made] as sculptures but as presenees of a sort. " The latency or hiddenness
of the anthropomorphism has been such that the lileralists themselves have,
as we have seen. felt free to charactcrize the modernist art they oppose, e.g. ,
the seulpture of David Smith ami Anthony Caro, as anthropomorphic- a
eharacterization whose teeth , imaginary to begin with , havejust been pulled .
By the same token , however, what is wrong with I¡teralist work is not that il
is anthropomorphic but that Ihe meaning and , equally, the hiddenness 01' its
anthropomorphism are incurably theatrical. (Not all literalist art hides or
masks ils anthropomorphism; the work 01' lesser figures like Steiner wears
unthropol1lorphism on its s1ceve.) The cruául dislin cliol1 lha¡ 1 ([In propo.l'il1g
.I'ofúr i.l' Ih' 111'('('1I lI'ork 11/(11 isjúndal/1l'l7lall.l' lhealr¡cal and work Ih(/I is nol . It
is lhea lricalily th¡¡ l, wh a teve r lhe dilTcrem:cs between lhelll , links artists likc
Bladcn amI G I'I)SVCIlOr,7 bü lh 01' wlHln l ha ve all owed " gigantie seale [lo
 V I S 11 ¡\ 1. 1\ H 1 1\ N JI \, IlJ< I l ll< 1\1 ¡\ N ( , 1: ¡\ R T
becomc] lhe loadeo lerm" (M onis) , wilh olller, ilIOn.' rcslrained figures like
Judd , Morris, Andre, McCracken, Le Wilt ami J cspilc lhc size of some of
his pieces - Tony Smith .x AmI it is in lhe interest, though not exp licitly in the
name, of theatrc that litcralist ideology rejccts both modernisr painting and,
at least in the hands of its most distinguished recent practitioners, modernist
sculpture.
In this connection Tony Smith's description ofa car ride laken at night on
the New Jcrsey Turnpike before it was finished makes compelling reading:
When I was teaching at Cooper Union in the first year or two oflhe
fifties , someone told me how I could get onto the unnnished New
Jersey Turnpike. 1 took three students and drove from somewhere in
the Meadows to New Brunswick. It was a dark night and there were
no lights or shoulder markers, lines, railings, or anylhing at al1
except the dark pavement moving through the landscape ofthe flats,
rimmed by hills in the distance, but punctuated by stacks, towers,
fumes, and colored lights. This drive was a revcaling experience. The
road and much of the landscape was artificial, and yet it couldn't be
called a work of art. On the other hand , it did something for me that
art had never done. At first I didn ' t know what it was, but its elTect
was to liberate me from many of the views I had had about art. It
seemed that there had been a reality there tha t had not had any
expression in art.
The experience on the road was something mapped out but not
socially recognized. I thought to myself, it ought to be clear that's the
end of art. Mosl painting looks pretty pictorial alter that. There is
no way you can frame it, you just have to experience it. Later I dis­
covered some abandoned airstrips in Europe- abandoned works,
Surrealist landscapes, somelhing that had nothing to do with any
runction, created worlds without tradition. Artificiallandscape with­
out cultural precedent began to dawn on me. There is a drill ground
in Nuremberg large enough to accommodatc two million men oThe
cntire field is enclosed with high embankments and towers. The
concrete approach is three sixteen-inch steps, one aboye the other,
strctching for a mile or so.
What seems to have been revea1ed to Smith that night was the pictori al
nature of painting- even, one might say, the conventional na lure 01' art.
And lhis Smith secms to have understood not as layi ng bare the essence 01'
art, but as announcing its end. In cOll1 parison with Ihe unmarked . unlit, all
but unstructured lurnpike ·-more p recise1y, wilh lile lurnpik c as ~x perienced
rrom wit hin lhe l:a r. lra vcling on il arl appcil r~ lo " av.: slrll(;].. SlIIilh as
alm os( a bsllf"dl y sm:t ll ("1\11 arl ll.HJa y is <111 "1'1 11 1 pm l , I I ' ~' :, Ia lll ps," h¡; has
.~aid) , l:lr\: III1lSl:lihcd, cOll vcn lio na l. ... nt l'f~' \ \.1 ' , Ii r,t'!'lI t', In have f'el l, no
1"11
I lri -" I
¡\RT ¡\ND OB HCT r10() J)
way to " frame" his cxperience on the road , that is, no way lo make sense or
it in terms or arto to make art of it. at least as art then was. Rather, "yo u just
have to experience it"- as it {wppens, as it merely ¡s. (The experience ([tone is
what matters.) There is no suggestion that this is problematic in any way. The
experience is clearly regarded by Smith as wholly accessible to everyone, not
jusi in princip'lc but in fact, and the question 01' whether or nol one has really
had it does not arisco That this appeals to Smith can be seen from his praise of
Le Corbusier as "more available" than Michelangelo: "The direct and primit­
ive experience 01' the High Court Building at Chandigarh is like the Pueblos
01' the Southwest under a fantastic ovcrhanging c1irr. !t's somcthing cveryone
can understand. " It is, I Ihink , hardly necessary to add that the availability of
modernist arl is not 01' this kind, and that the rightness or relcvance 01' one's
conviction about specific modernist works, a conviction that begins and ends
in one's experience 01' the work itself, is always open to question.
But what Ivas Smith's experience on the turnpike? Or to put the samc
question another way, ir the turnpike. airstrips, and drill ground are not
works 01' art, what are they?--What, indeed , if not empty, or "abandoned".
situa!iol1s? And what was Smith's experience if not the experience ol' whal I
have been calling ¡hecttre? It is as though the turnpike. airstrips, and dril1
ground reveal the theatrical character ofliteralist art, only without the object,
that is, lI'ilhout (he (lrt itse{I- as though the object is needed only within a
/'()O/1/9 (or, perhaps, in any circumstances less extreme than these). In each 01'
the aboye cases the object is, so to speak, replaced by something: for example,
on the turnpike by the constant onrush 01' the road. the simultaneous reces­
sion of new reaches of dark pavement il1umined by the onrushing headlights,
the sense 01' the turnpike itself as something enormous, abandoned, derelict,
existing for Smith alone and for those in the car with him. ... This last point
is important. On the one hand, the turnpike, airstrips, and drill ground
bclong to no one; on the other, the situation established by Smith's presence
is in each case felt by him to be !lis. Moreover, in each case being ab1e to go on
and on indefinitely is ofthe essence. What replaces the object-what does the
same job 01' distancing or isolating the beholder, 01' making him a subject,
Ihat the object did in the c10sed room · is above all the endlcssncss, or
(lhjectlessness, 01' the approach or onrush or perspective. I t is Ihe explicitness,
Ihat is lo sayo the sheer pcrsistence. with which the expericnce presents ,i tself
; l S dircclcd at him from outside (on the turnpike from outside the cal') th a t
si ll1ultaneollsly makes him a subject-makes him a subject- and establishes
Ihe experience itsclf as something like that 01' an object, or rather, 01'
objcclhood . No wonder Morris's speculations about haw to put literalist
\Vllrlo. (Hlldoors remain ::;trangcly inconclusive:
W hy nll l pu l lh!! work (lul d l)\)fS atld I"lI rlher change th e terms? A real
I1ccd l!Xisls lO allow Ihis TIC,,' sh:!, lI t bCI.'OI11i: prat:t ical. .t\rchitcc\urally
(h-siplR'd ";l' lI lp llltl' COll rls ¡( Il' II n l I h~' ¡lII SWl~ r 11(11' is Ihe placemcn l 01'
_

\\11 1" Olll Slt k \: lIhi ~' . lI d llli·~ III ,,,llp ll lI~ , "11 .dh 1I is a space, wil ho ut
alchi lCl·III'1.: as had .. glolllld ;tud l t'l l~ l l'IIÚ IIt.\ 1 would give different
1l'IIIIS 11) wo rk wilh.
111Ik'ss lhe pieces are sel down in a wholly nalural context and Morris does
no! scmn 1.0 be advocaling this, some sort of artificial but not quite archilcc­
Imal sclling must be constructed . W hat Smilh's remarb seem to suggest is
Lh at lhe more effeetivc- mcaning effeetive as theatre--the setting is made,
lhe more slIpertluous the works tltemselves beco me.
VI
SlIlilh\ account of his experience on the turnpike bears witness to theatre's
pru follnd hostility to the arts, and disdoses, precisely in the absence of the
tl hléCI amI in what takes its place, what might be called the theatricality o f
oh ,ccl hondo By the same token , however, lhe imperative that modernist
(Il1illling dcfeat or suspt:nd its objecthood is at bottom the imperative that it
.1':/;'11/01' xlIspend Iheatre . And lhis means that there is a war going on between
IIrl.:alre and Illodernist painting, between the theatrical and the pictorial- a
w:l r lhal, dcspite the literalists' explicit rejection of modernist painting and
~c lllplure, is not basically a matter of program and ideology but of experi­
CII CC. wnviction, sensibihty. (For examPle, it was a particular experience tha t
I'IIgl'l/c!('/"('d Smith's conviction lhat painting- in fact , that the arts as such­
\WI"l~ linished . )
The slarkness and apparent irreconcilabihty of this conftict is something
II!.:\\' . 1 remarkcd earher tha! objecthood has beco me an issue for modern ist
painling only within the past several years. This, however, is no! to say tb a t
hl:!ur/, lhc presenl situalÍon came into being, paintings, 01' sculptures ror that mat­
ll:r, simpl) u'ere ohjects. It would, 1 think , be c10ser to the truth to say that
IIrcy xill/ply were noL 10 The risk , cven the possibility, 01' seeing works of art as
IIlIlltillg /llore than objel:ts did not exist. That this possibility began to present
ilsdJ" arollnd 1960 was largely the result of developments within moderrust
paillling. R Ollghly. the more nearly assimilable to objccts certain advanced
painling hau come to seem, the more the entire history 01' painting since
M;lI1cl (;Quid be understood- delusively, I believe- as consisting in the pro­
!',n:ssivc (lhough ultimately inadequate) revelation ol' its essential objecthood,"
alllllhc more urgent became the need ror modernist painting lO make explicil
ils COl1ventional- - spccifkally, its piclorial--- essence by defeating or suspend­
ing ils (Jwn objecthood through the medium or shape. Thc view of modern i:sl
r ain l in g as lending loward objecthood is implidt in J udtl 's remark , 'Thc new
li./'., Iil eru li s t] wo rk o bvio ll sly rcsemblcs scull1 11tn: mon.' lit an il dnes pai nling.
blll il is m:arcr lO r ll inli ng"; a lld il i ~ in Ih is vic\V Ilral lil~' l a l i sl scnsibilily in
¡!cm:ra l is g lllll lldct.1. Li le ra l ¡SI scnsihi lil y is. IIIl' l d 1111' .1 II''¡pIlIlS\! lo I hc .WI/1U'
, k:vdl)PIIIClIl s 11r;11 11 :1\111 Iilrgcly I.allllpc lkd IlltldulIl:. 1 p: llllli ll¡' lo II l1 d o ils
1'/11
¡\ RI 1\ N Il () B 'H 'lit) ti Il
ll hjt.:clllO\ld IIltllI.· prcciscly, Ihe sallle dcvclopmenls s('('n dWúenlly, lhat
is. in lhealrical ICl"llls. by a scnsibilily (/Iready theatrical, already (to say the
worst) corruplCd 01' perverted by theatre. Similarly, whal has compelled
ll10dernist painting lo dereat 01' suspend its own objecthood is notjust devel­
oplllcnts internal to itself, but the same general , enveloping, infectious theat­
ricality that corrupted literalist sensibility in the first place and in the grip
01' which the developments in question--and modernist painting -in general
. - are seen as nothing more than an uncompelling and preseneeless kind of
theatrc. Jt was the need to break the fingers orthis grip that made objecthood
an issue for modernist painting.
Objecthood has also become an issue for modernist sculpture. This is true
despite the ract that sculpture, being three-dimensio naI. resembles both ordin­
ary objects and literalist work in a way that painting does not. Almost ten
years ago Clement Greenberg sUlllmed up what he saw as the emergence 01' a
new sculptural "style ," whose master is undoubtedly David Smith, in tho
following terllls:
To render substance entirely optical , and form , whether pictorial ,
sculptural. or architectural , as an integral part of ambient space­
this brings anti-illusionism fllll circIe. lnstead orthe illusion ofthings,
we are now offered the illusion oflllodalities: namely, that matter is
incorporeal , weightless , and exists only optically Iike a mirage. ' 2
Since 1960 this development has been carried to a succession of dim axes
by the English sculptor Anthony C aro , whose work is far more .~pecllically
resistant to being seen in terms of objecthood than that or David Smith . A
characteristic sClllpture by Caro con sists, I want to sa)', in lhe mutual and
nakedjuxlaposilion 01' the f-beams , girders, cylinders, lengths 01' piping. sheet
metal. and grill that it comprises ra ther than in the compound ohiecl that they
compose. The mutual inftection 01' one clement by another, rather than the
identity 01' each, is what is crucial- though or course altering the identity
01' any element would be at teast as drastic as altering its placement. (The
identity 01' cal:h element matters in somewhat the same way as the fact that
it is an arm, or Ihis arm , that makes a particular gesture; or as the fact that
il is Ihis word or lhis note and not another that occurs in a particular place
in a sentence or melody .) The individual elements besto\V significance on one
allothcr preciscly by virtue of their juxtaposition: it is in this sense, a sense
inextricably involved with the concepl of meaning, that everything in Caro's
artlhat is worlh looking at is in its syntax. Caro's concentration upon syntax
al1101lnts. in G reenberg's view, to "an emphasis on abstractness, on radical
unlikcncss to naturc. " '1 And G reen berg goes on lo remark , " No other scu lp­
1m has go nl! as far from the slrut!lll l'al logic 01' QI'dinary ponderable lhin gs."
1I i~ worth cl11phasiúng. howcvcr, Ihal Ihis is a rllnctio n 01' mo rc than the
IOWIICSS , I'I,ellllcss. p;lrt-hy-l'a rtlll·s.... " bsl.·(Il·e orclldusin g p roflIGS anJ cenlers
1I J

 " 1 S 1I \ I f.o It 1
01' inlen:sl. lIllpl' r!' pk u V llS Ill:S S .I: I ~ . 1,1'( ' ;11 \1\ ~~lI l p t lll ~~S. Ratlwl" lhl:y dckat,
01" aIlay , objCd hood by imi lating. nol gCs lll tl:s c'w l'Ily, bul lhe (1]i('([(')' 01'
gcsture; Iike ccrtain llIusic and poel ry . th lt)' a re posscsscd by lhe knowledge 01'
lhe human body and how, in innumerable ways a lld moods, it makes JT1Can­
ing, It is as though Caro's sculptures esscntial izc mcaningfulness as suc/¡ ­
as though the possibility ol' mea ning what we say ami do ([/one makes his
sculpture possible. A H thi s. it is hardly necessary to add , makes Caro's art a
fountainhead 01' antiliteralist and antitheatrical sensibility.
There is another, more general respect in which objeethood has become an
issue for the most ambitious recent modernist sculpture ami th al is in regard
lo c%/" This is a large and difficult subject, which 1 can not hope to do more
than touch on here. 14 BrieOy, howcver, color has become problematic 1'01'
modernist sculpture, not beca use one senses that it has been app/ied, but
beeause the color of a given sculpture, whether applied or in the natural state
of the material , is identical with its surface; and inasmuch as all objects have
surface, awareness of the sculpture's surface implies its objecthood---thereby
threatening to qualify or mitigate the undermining of objecthood achieved by
opticality ami , in Caro's pieces, by their syntax as wcl!. It is in this connection ,
1 believe, that a very reeent sculpture, Bunga, by Jules Olitski ought to be
seen . Bunga consists of between fifteen and twenty metal tubes, ten feet long
ami of various diameters, placed upright, riveted together aod then sprayed
with paint of different colors; the dominant hue is yellow to yellow-orange,
hut the top ami " rear" of the piece are sutTused with a deep rose. and close
looking reveals flccks ami even thin trickles of green ami red as well . A rather
\ViJe red band has been painted around the top of the piece, while a much
thi nncl" band in two different blues (one at the " front" and another at the
" 1 t'lI r") l:ircul11scribcs the very bottom . Obviously , Bunga relates intimately to
() ht ski 's spray paintings. especially those of thc past year 01' so , in which he
Ita .; wmk ed with raint and brush at or near the limits 01' the support. At the
sa lile t illle. il alllounts to something far more than an attempt simply to make
111 " llanslatc" Itis paintings into sculptures, namely , an attempt to establish
~illll';l('t' thc surface, so to speak. of painling-- as a medillm of sculpture. The
II )C n I' IlIbes. caeh 01' which one sees, incredibly, as jlol- that is. flat bUI
rol/('" lIlakcs Bunga's surface more Iike that of a painting than Iike that 01'
allllbjccl: likc painting, and lInlike both ordinary objects ami other sculptll re,
nI/liga is {/I! surfacc. Ami 01' course what declares or establishes that sllrf~lee is
mlm , Olilski's sprayed color.
VII
Al litis po il1t 1 want to Ill ake a claim lhat I ca nn l)t hupe lo provc 01' sub­
bl il l1 liJle hut thJ I 1 bd ic ve ncvc rlhckss ltl b~ IlIle: I,i . Ihat thcu tre and
111t';llrica lil y are a l \Val' toda y. nOI sim ply will! 11I 11Ih'I III SI pail1li ng (or mod­
(' li ti S! Pll illling a mi sl'1I 1plllrc), hU I wirll url liS ~ I J(" ,lIld III Ih ~' cxlt'lll lhal
IIH
1'/1)
.\ It I "N 1) 11 11 J 1ti . I lit I () 11
Iltt' dirkn:\I1 ur ls CU II he dcscnbcu as lI1otk m ist , with ll10dernist sensibili ly as
slIelt . This clailll call bc broken down into three propositions or theses:
1) n/e .I'l/("('(' .I'S. ('1'('11 Ihe surviva/. lit (he an.\" has comc il1creasil1g/y lO depend
1111 1/lI'ir ohilily 1(1 de{ml Ihealre. T his is perhaps nowhere more evident than
witltin theatre itsclr, wherc the need to defeat what I have been calling theatre
has ehietly made itsclf felt as the necd to establish a drastically different
'5
rdatiol1 to its audience . (The relevant texts are , of course, Brecht and Artaud . )
1"111- theatre has an audience- it exisls /,o/' one-in a way the other arts do
IInt ; in faet, this more than anything else is what modernist sensibility finds
inlolcrable in theatre generally . Here it should be remarked that literalist art,
too, possesses an audience, though a somewhat special one: that lhe beholder
is confronted by Iiteralist work within a situation that he experiences as hi.\·
I11cans that there is an important scnsc in which the work in questio n exists
rol' him o/une. even if he is not actually alone with the work at the time. It
l11ay seem paradoxical to c1aim both that literalist sensibility aspires to an
ideal ol' " something everyone can understand" (Smith) and that literalist art
addresses itself to the beholder alone, but the paradox is only apparent.
Someone has merely to en ter the room in which a literalist work has been
placed to become that beholder, that audiencc of one - almost as though the
work in question has been \VaitingIó/' him. Ami inasmuch as literalist work
dl'!)('l1ds on the beholder. is il1complcte withoLlt him. it has been waiting for
him. And once he is in the room the work refuses , obstinately , to let him
alone- which is to say, it refuses to stop confronting him , distancing him ,
isolating him. (Such isolation is not solitude any more than such confronta­
lion is communion.)
lt is the overcoming of theatre that modernist sensibility finds most exalt­
ing and that it experiences as the hallmark of high art in oLlr time. There
is. however, one art that, by its very nature, escupes theatre entirely- the
IIlnvies. I (' This helps explain why movies in general. including frankly appall­
ing (lIlCS , are acceptable to modernist sensibility whereas all but the most SLlC­
n:ssful painting, sculpture, music, and poetry is not. Because cinema escapes
Ihcatre-- automatically , as it were---it pro vides a welcome ami absorbing
I d 'uge to sensibiuties at war with theatre ami theatricality. At the Same time ,
I he autnmatic. guaranteed character of the refuge- more accurately , the fact
lhat what is provided is a refuge frolll theatre ami not a triumph over it,
ahsorption not convietion- means that the cinema, even at its most experi ­
IIlcnla!. is 110t a lI10denúsl art.
:~) /1/'1 degel1e/'(/{es as il appro([cltes ti7/:' condiliol1 o/ll1ca(/'c. Theatre is
I It(~ C!lIllIlIOn dCl1ominator that binds a large ami seemingly disparate variety
or activitics lo one another. and that distinguishes those activities from
Ihe radically dilTcrent en terpri scs 01' lhc modernist arts . Here as e1sewhere
Ihe q lH!slio n 01' valul' 0 1" leve! is ccntral Fnr cX<l mple, él failure to register lhe
\'llIlff1101lS d ilTl.: rcl1cc in qua lily he lwl:cn. suy, lhe lIlusi<.: o f C a r tcr a nJ th a t 0 1'
( 'al'c \1\ bc lWCl.!1I Ihe pailllill)':; \ 11 I " 1I 1 ~. ;lml Ih USt' ~)r Rau 'it:hcnberg means
 A I{ I ¡\I{ l' ANI) 1I I1J I!( ' III C1(1 11
Iha l the 1\': a I Ú ¡~I IIIl"li \ll1b bCIWCC II II III "¡~ ,llId I hl.'.l ll ~ ill the lirsl inslance
allll bdwcen pailllinlj alllllhealre ill lhe SCI,;\ llld . IIC d b placed by lhe illLL'Siun
Ihal Ihe ha rric rs bclwecn the arls an: in lhe prnecss 01' ennnbl ing (Cagc and
RiIl lsehcnbcrg being scen, eomxtly. as similar) ami lhat lhe arts thcmsclves
are al last sliding towards sorne kind off1nal, implosive, hugely dcsirablc syn­
Iht!sis ,1 7 Whereas in faet the individual arts llave never been more explicitly
coneerned with the eonvention s that constitute lheir respective essenees,
3) The {'o l1ctpfs o/qua/ify and value- rll1d fo lh e exlenl fhaf these (lre cen! 1'(1/
!o (11'1, fh e cOl1cepf %rt ifse// ore meaning/ul, 01' whol/y meaning/u/, on/r
within fh e il1dil'iduo/ (lrfs. Whaf ¡¡es between Ihe urls is Iheafre. It is, I think ,
significant thal in their vario us statements the literalists lla ve largely avoided
lhe iss ue of value or quality at the samc time as they have sho wn considerable
uneertainty as to whether or not what they are making is art. To deseribe
their enterprise as an a ttempt to es tablish a l1e1l' art does not rcmove the
uneertainty; at most it points lO its source. Judd himself has as mueh as
acknowledged the problematie eharacter 01' the litera list enterprise by his
claim , "A work needs only to be interesting." For Judd , as for literalist
scnsibility generally , all that matters is whether or not a given work is able to
elieil and sustain (his) il1f er est. Whereas within the modernist arts no thing
short of cOl1viclÍol1- specifically, thc conviction that a particular painting
or sculpture or poem or piece of music can or cannot support comparison
with past work within that art whose quality is nol in d oubt- matters at
all. (Literalist work is often condemned- when it is eondemned- for being
boring. i\ tougher eharge would be that it is merely interesting.)
The interest of a given work resides , in Judd 's view, both in its charaeter as
él whoJe and in the sheer speáficily 01' the materia Is of which it is made:
Most of the work involves new materials, either recent inventions
or things not used before in art. . , . Materials vary greatl y and are
simrly malerials - formica, aluminuTn , eolcl-rolled steel , plexiglas, red
and cOlllmon brass, and so forth . They are speeific. If they are Llsed
<Jireelly , they are more speeilic. Also. lhey a re usually aggressive.
There is an objectivity lo lh e obdurate identily of a material.
I ,ike I he shape of the object. the material s do not represent. signify , or allude
lo anything; the)' are what they are and n Olhing more. And what they are is
no!, strictly speaking, somcthing that is grasped or intuited or recogni 7.ed
ur cvcn secn once and for all. Rathcr, lhe " obdurate identity" 01' a specifk
material , like the wholeness 01' the sha pe. is simply stated o r given or cstab­
lishL'd al tJ1C vcry outset. ir no! befo re the o lltset; aet:O rdi ng ly. the ex pe rienee
ur both is onc ur endlcssnes~ . 0 1' inex hawiti bilily. 01' heing ab k to go 011 a no
0 11 IClling. ror exalll r lc. the material itsdr cO llrro /l1 1111\: ill :rll il s literal ncss,
lis "ohjcc livi ly." its ahsc nce nI' a nyt hin1,! h Cyl!ll cl ihdl In a simiJllr vci ll
MI)II is Ira s ", fill ell :
I X!)
( 'haractc l ls lic ur a geslalt is that once il is cstablislred all thc inrorll1a­
lioll abollt it. q/la gestal!, is exhallsted. (Onc docs no t, for example,
scck thc geslalt 01' a gestalt.) . .. Qlle is Ihell both free of the shape
and bound to il. Free 01' rcleased beeause 01' the ex haustion 01'
infonnalion about it, as shape. and bound to it beca use it remains
constant anJ indivisible.
The same note is str uá by Tony Smith in a statement the first sentenee 01'
which I quoted earlier:
I'm interested in the inscrutability and mysteriousness of the thing.
Something obvio us o n the fa ce of it (like a washing machine or a
pump) is of no further intcrest. A Bennin gton earthenware jar, for
instance. has subtlety ofeolor, largeness ofform , a general suggestion
ofs ubstanee, generosi ly , is calm and reass uring · - qualities that take
il beyond pure utility. It eontinues to no urish us time and tillle again .
We can't see it ,in a second, we continue to read it. There is something
absurd in the fact that you can go baek to a eube in the same \Vay.
Like Judd ' s Speeific Objects and Morri s's gcstalts or unitary forms , Smith 's
clIbe is a/lI'oy.l' o f furlher interest; one never feels that o ne has come to the
elld ofit: it is inexha ust ible. It is inexhaustible, however, not beca use ofa ny
fullness- lha[ is the inexhaustibility of art- but beeause there is no thing
there to exhaust. It is endlcss the way a road mi ght be: ifit were circular, for
example.
Endlessness. being able to go on and on, even having to go on and on , is
central both to the concept of interest and t o that of objecthood. In fact, it
sccm s to be the experienec that most deepl y excites lileralist sensibility, and
that lileralist artists seek to objectify in their work - for example, by the repc­
tition of identical units (Judd's "one thin g after a n othe r"). which cani es rhe
implication that the units in qllestion could be multiplied ud il1lil1illl/J1 .I~
Smith's aeeount of hi s experiencc on lhe unfinished turnpike reco rds that
cxeitement all but explicitly. Similarly, M orris's daim that in the best new
work the bcholder is made ,I\vare that " he himself is establishing relation ships
as hc apprehends the objeet from various positio ns a nd under varying condi­
Iinns 01' light and spatial contexl" amounts to the claim that the beholder is
malle aware ofthe endlessness and inexhaustibility ifnot ofthe object itselfat
any rate (JI' his cxpcricnce of it. This awarencss is further exacerbated by what
lIIighl heealled Ihe inc/u.I'il'enl'.I's ofhis silualion , that is, by the fact, remarked
ca rlicr, that eve ry thing he observcs eollnts as pa rt oftha t situation and henee
is kit lo hear in SOIllC way that rel1lains lInJefined on his experience 01' lhe
IIhj cc t.
Ilc n.'li null y I wan l lo ém r kr:-,i¡-c s\ll1wtlling. Ihalma y alread y have become
d ear: lhe e;'( pCII Cllec in l) 1I\:sl ioll flC' /' .\' I .\/.\ 1/1 ti/lit '. und the prc:;en lmcnt or
IN I
 \ I 'i\ ! i\ 1. "It 1 J\ N 11 l'llu 1'1'1{ M.\ r.¡ t ' I ¡\ I{ I ,\ I{ 1 ,\ N i)
l'lIdkSSIll'S,~ 111:11, I l,a ve blX lI dai, nll ,p. I ~ 1 ~' 1 1I1 11 tI! ill ~'lil lt~t :111 ¡¡lid tll \! ~lry i:;
L;sslJlIl ially a prcscntmcn l or c n dll!~s. ur illdd 11 1111.' dll/l/ l/olI . ()II q; a~aill Slll ith ~
aeeo un t 01' his night drive is relevant , as wdl as his n:lIlark . " WIJ can ' t SClJ it
'[i, e. , the jar and, by illlplicalion, the cube] in a scca lld . wc continue lO n:au it."
Morris, too, has stated explicitly, "The experience 01' the work necessarily
exists in time"- though it would make no d ífferencc if he had not. The
literalist preoceupation with time- more precisely, with the dura!ion o! (he
experience -- is , I suggcst paradigmatically theatrical: as thoug h theatre con­
fronts the beholder, and thcreby isolates him , wi th the endlessness not just
of objeethood but of lime: or as though the sense which , at bottom , lheatre
addresses is a sense of temporality, 01' time both passjng and to come. simu/­
lancously appro(lchil1fi und reeedinfi, as if apprehended in an infinite perspect­
ive ... 19 T hís preoceupation marks a profound differenee between literalist
work and modernist painting and sculpture. It is as though one's experienee
of the la tter ha.\' no duration- not because one in fae! experiences a picture
by Noland ar Olitski or a sculpture by David Smith or Caro in no time at all,
but because al every !110menl Ihe \Fork ¡(se/! is n;f10/~)! mani/esl. (This is true
of sculpture despite the obvious faet that, being three-dimensional, it can be
seen fro m a n infinite number of points of view. Onc's experienee of a Caro is
not incomplete, and one's conviction as to its q ua lily is not suspended, simply
beca use one has seen it only from where one is standing. Moreover, in the
grip of his best work one's view of the selllpture is, so to speak , eclipsed by the
seulpture ilsclf-whieh it is plainly meaning1ess to speak ol' as only pan/y
present.) It is this continuous and entire presentness, amounting, as it were,
to the perpctual creation of itselC that one experienees as a kind of il1s/([/1lone­
(JI/,I'ness: as though if only one were infinitely more aeute , a single infinitely
hrief instant would be long enough to see everything, to experienee the work
in all its deplh and fullness, to be forever eonvineed by il. (Here it is worth
lIO! ill g thal the coneept 01' interest implies temporality in the form of eon­
linlling attention directed at the objeet, whercas the concept 01' convietion
dol'S IIn!.) I \Vant to c\aim that it is by virtue of their presentness and
illslantaneousness that modernist painting and sculpture defeat theatre. In
lilcl. I am tcmpted far beyond my knowledge to suggest that, faeed with the
need to Jefeat theatre, it is aboye all to the condition of painting and sculpture
the eondition , that is. of existing in, indeed of secreting or eonstituti ng, a
contillllouS and perpetual pr('senl- that the other eontemporary modernisl
<Iris, Illost notably poetry and musie, aspire. 20
VIII
This essa y will be read as (In a ttack on certain a rli)ls (and crit'ies) ami as a
lkl"unse (JI' olhe rs. Ami of co urse it is lrul! lha ! Ihc d¡;sire lo tl islillgll is h
oCtwCllll w ha l is lo lile lhe auth en tie él r Lnf out' Ihlle a lld (llll e·f work, which,
wllalcvc' Ih l' tl cd l l,;~11 ion. pa ~s i()n, é.lnd inl c ll i¡'cl\\ l' 01 1 Ih ¡a ca hll"i. sccms !OIllC
Il<"l
f) IU t! ,. I 11 11( JlI
In shal\' cc rllli l! l'h il rilc tnislics associall.:ó hc f'l': will! th¡; cnncepts 01' lileralisfll
alld IlIl~al rc. ha s Iargdy lTlolivalcd What I havc written , In Ihese lasl sell­
lcllCllS , howcvcr, I want lo call attention to Ihe utter pervasiveness- Ihe
virlualllniversality- orlhe sensibility or mode ofbeing tha l l have charaeter­
il'.ed as corrupted 01' perverted by Iheatre. We are allliteralists most 01' all of
ollr lives. Preselltness is grace.
Notes
This was said by Judd in an interview wilh Bru¡;e Glaser, edited by Luey R,
Lippard and published as " Questions to Stella and Judd ," An N ews, Vol. LXV,
No, 5. September 1966, The remdrks attributed in the present essay to Judd and
Morris havc been taken from lhis interview, from Judd's essay "Specifie Obiects,"
ArlS Yearhook . No. 8. 1965, or from Robert Morris's essays, "Notes on Seulp­
ture" and "Notes on Sculpture, Part 2." published in Arljimllll. Vo l. IV, No. 6,
Februélry 1966, and Vol. 5, No. 2, October 1966, respectively, (l have also taken
Dne remark b y Mo rris from the catalogue to the exhibition "Eight Sculptors: the
Ambiguous Image," hcld at lhe Walker Art Centcr, October- Oecember 1966.) I
should add that in laying out \\l hat seellls lo me the position Judd and Morris hold
in common I have ignored various differences between thCIll , and ha ve used
certain remarks in contcxts for whieh they may not have been intended. Mo reover.
( have not always indiGlted which of them actually said or wrote él parti¡;ular
phrase; tlle a lternative \Vould have been to litter the text with footnotes ,
2 "Shape as Form: Frank Stella's New Paintings," Anjórwl1, Vol. V, No, 3, Novcm­
ber 1966: "Ju1cs 01itski," lhe catalogue introduction lo an exhibilion 01' his work
at the Coreoran Gallery, Washington, O.e., April- June, 1967; and "R ona ld Da vis:
Surface and (lIusion," ArljórulIl. VoL V, No, 8, Aprill967,
-' Published in the catalogue to the Los Angeles County Museum 01' A rt's exhibi­
tion, "American Sculpture ofthe Sixtics." The verb "projeet" as ( havcjust used il
is laken from Greenberg's statement, "The ostensible aim of the Minimalists is to
' Project' objeets and ensembles of objects that are just nudgeable into art."
'1 "After Abstraet Expressionism.'· Arl Il11 er/'/oliona/, Vol. VI , No. 8, Octobcr 25 ,
1962, p. 30. The passage from whieh this has been taken reads as follo\V s:
Under the testing ofmodernism more and more ofthe conventions of the
art 01' painting have shown themselves to be dispensable. unessential. But
no\\' it has been established . it would SL'CI11. that lhe irreducible esscnce of
pictoriall,art consists in but t\Vo eonslilulive eonventions or norms: flatness
and the delimilation 01' flat ness; and that the observance 01' mercly these
t\Vo norms is enough to crea te an objcct that can be experienccd as a
picture: thus a slretehcd 01' tackcd-up cam'as alr!;:ady exists as a picture
though nol neeessarily as a succes,ljú/ one.
111 ils broad outlinc lhis is undoubtedly correct. There arc, however, certain
qu:tlilicaliol1s lhat can be made,
Tn be¡.o;in \Vilh , il is nol quitc enough to sa y that abare can vas tacked to a waH
is 1101 " l1cccssaril y" a s u¡;¡;es~rul pi¡;ture: it \Vould , 1 think. be less of an cxaggera­
Il un 1\) liay 1ha! it i~ 110! ('(J/'/c('il'ah!y Qne, 11 may be countcrcd that future eireulll­
s lll ncc~ llIigh l bc sLleh as lo 1I/II" l' il a SUL'ccs~ rul painting: but ( would argue that,
rol' ,ha' lo ha ppcll 11Ic CI1IC ll'li ,;c 0 1 pailllil1 ¡.! would have lo change so drasticajly
111 : 11 IIPlhillg 111()1\~ Ihan Ihe; 1111111" II'llldd f'¡'I¡.¡ail1, (11 \Vlluld requir!;: arar grcater
I f, 'I,
 V I ~;l I A ' AIII' ANI, 1'lIlf l" lItM ,\NI:' li A I( I
ch ange Ihall thallhat pll lntill )"' h;¡ ~; I/ lIdctP'I1II 111 " ,1 M 11,\' 1 1\ ' Np l.l1ld, ()hlski. ;11 11.1
Stellal) Moreówr. sccing Sll llu.: lhin g a~, ;; 1''(11111 11)1 lit III\' SC II SC 111i11 IIlIe NCCS Ihe
tacked-lI p canvas as a paint illg, ami hcill g ('OI IVlll ced Iha l a pil rt icular work can
stand comparison with th e painting uf the Pilst wh ns..: qua lit y is m)1 ill donbt, are
altogelher different experiences: it is , I want to say, as though unlcss sOIllc.thing
compels conviclion as 10 its quality it is no more tha n trivially or nominally a
painting. This suggests that flatnes s and the delimita lion of t1a t rtess () ughl not to
be though t ofas the "irreducible esscnce of pictorial art" but rathcr as something
Iikc the mínima/ colldiliol1s ./ór somelllinx's heing se en as (/ p(/Ínling: and that the
crucial question is not what these minimal and, so to speak , time1css conditions
are , but rather what, a t a gi VC11 moment, is capable of compel1ing conviction, of
succeeding as painting. This is not ro say that painting h((,I' 110 essence; it is to c1aim
that that essence-i.e., that wh ich compels conviction- is largel y determined by.
ane! therefore changes continual1 y in response to , the vilal work ofthe rccen! past.
The essence of painting is not sOlllething irreducible. R ather, the task of the
modernist p aLn ter is lo discovcr those conventions that, at a gi ven ¡iIlOment, a/one
are capable of establishing his work's identit y as p,linting .
Greenberg approaches this position when he adds, " A s it seems to me , Newman,
R othko, and Still have swung the self-critieism 01' modernist painting in a ne\\'
direction simply by continuing it in its ole! onc. The question now asked through
thcir art is no longer what constitutes art. or the art ofpainting, aS such , bul whal
irreducibly constitutes good art as such. Or rather, what is the ultimate source of
value or qu al ity in art?" Bul I IVould argue that what 1Il0dernism has meant is that
the Iwo questions--What constitutes the art of painting? And what constitutes
guod painling'I_--are no longer separable; the first disappears, or increasingly tends
to disappear. in lo the second. (1 am , of course, taking issue herc with the ve rsion of
modernism put forward in m y T/¡ree America/l Painlers.)
For more on thc nature ofesse nce and eonventi o n inlhe modernist arts see my
essays on Stella and Olitski mentioned aboye , as well as Slanley Cavell, " Music
Discomposed," and " Rcjoinders" to crities of that essay, to be published as part of
a symposium by the LJ niversity of Pittsburgh Press in a volume entilled Arl, l'vlind
(lnd R e/igio/l. Ca\ie1l's picees \ViII also appear in Musl We ¡'vfeal1 W/wl We Say'), a
book of his essays to be published in the near future by Scribner's.
5 Quotcd by Morris as the epigraph to his "Notes on Sculplure, Part 2. "
6 Except for thc Morris epigraph airead)' quoted, a l1 stalements by Tony Smilh
have been takcn from Sarnuel W ags taff, Jr. ' s, "Talking to Tony Srnith", ArlfilrwTI.
Vol. V , No . 4, Deccmber 1966.
7 In the catalogue to last spring's Prirnary Struclures exhibition al the Jewish
M uscum , Bladen wrote, " How do you makc the inside the outsideT and Grosvenor,
"1 d on't want m y work to be thought of as 'Iarge sculpture: they are ideas that
ope rate in the space between floor and ceiling." The relevance ofthese statements
10 what I have adduced as evi dence for the theatricality of literalist thcory and
practice seellls obvious.
8 It is theatrica lity, too , thal links all these artists to other figures as dispara te as
Kaprow , Co rnell, Rauschenberg. Oldenburg, flavin, Smithson , Kienholz, Segal,
Sama ra s, C hristo, Kusama .. . the list could go on indefinitely.
9 The concept Of él room is. mostl y clandestinely. impo rtant to litcralist art and
thcory. In fact, it can often he substituted for the word "spacc" in thc lalter:
sornething is sa id to be in rn y space if it is in the sal1lc room with me (amI if il is
placed so th at 1 can hardly füil tu noticc il) .
lO Stanlcy Cavell has remarked in sel1linar tha l rol' K :III( 111 Ila: ('riIÍc/I/(' oj'J/ldgl1lelll
el work ~)ral'l is nOI anobiect. I will takl: Ihi s UPl hllllll lÍ ly 1<1 ;lI'kllmvl\ld l!C Ihe fact
Pi ,1
\ I( I N I) 0 1111 ¡ ' III (J ()IJ
IIIal \Vil """1 1I11111ClnllS C"IIV¡,'I'S¡¡ li,lIIS wilh C lI véll durill A tlle past few ycars', and
lI'illl"lIl wllat I I" IV\) (¡;¡¡ l'IIcd frlllll Ilil ll in cuurses and seminars, thc prcse nt essa y
;lIld nut it alu ne- wlluld have hccn illconceivahlc. 1 want also to cxpress my
gralitllde amI indcbll:dncss to the composer John Ilarbison, who, toge¡hcr with
his wil(;, thc violinist Roscmary llarbison, has given me whatever initiation into
nwdcrn music I have had, both for that initiation and for numerous insigh ts
hcaring on the subject 01" this essay.
11 Olle way of dcscribing this view might be to say that it draws somelhing like a
Calsc inferencc from the fact that the increasingly explieit acknowledgment 01' th e
literal character 01" the support has been central to the development 01' rnodernist
painting: namcl y, that ¡iteralness as such is an arlistic value 01' supreme import­
ance. In "Shape as FOfln" 1 argued that Ihis inference is blind to eenain vital
considerations: and implied that Iiteralness- more precisely , the literalness of the
supporl ..- is a value only wilhin rnodernist pa inting, and th en on ly beca use .it ha s
bccn 11I(1(/e one by thc history of that l:nterprise.
12 "The New Sculpture," Arl afUI Clllture, Boston, 1961. p. 144.
1:1 This and the following rcmark are takcn from Greenberg's essay, " A nthony
Caro, " Arls Yea/'{¡ook, No. 8, 1965 . Caro's first step in this direction, the e lilllina­
tion of the pedestal, seems in retrospect lo have bccn motivated not by rhe dcsire
to prcsent his work without artificial aids so much a s by the need to underllline its
obieethood. \-lis wOl'k has revea\ed the extent lo w hich merel y putting something
on a pedestal cOl1jirms it in its objecthood; though merely removing Ihe pedestal
does not in itself undermine objeclhood, as literalist work p rovcs.
14 See Greenberg's "Anthony Caro" and th e last section ofmy "Shape as Form" ror
more, though nol a grea t deallllore, about color in scu lpture.
15 The necd to achieve a ncw relation to Ihe spectator. whieh Brecht felt and which
he discussed time and again in h is writings on thea tre , was not simply the result 01'
his Marxism. On the l:ontrary, his discovery of rvfarx seems to have been in part
the diseovery of what this rc1ali on might be ¡ike, what it might mean: " W hen I
read Marx's Capila/ J understood rny play s. Naturally J \Vant to see this book
\Videly circulalcd. It wasn't of course that I I"ound I had unconseiousl y writte n a
whole pile of Marxist plays; but this rnan Marx was the only spel:tator for my
plays I'd ever come aeross." (Brechl (In Tllealer , edited and translated by Johll
Willctt, New York , 1964, pp. 21 - 24.)
16 Exaetly ho\\' the movies escape Iheatre is a bcauliful question, and Ihere is no
doubt but thal a phenomenology of the cinema thal conlJentratee! on the sirnilar­
ities and differences between it and the the at re -·- e.g., Ihat in the movies the actors
are not physically presen t, the film itself is projeeted mvay from us, the sereen is not
cxperienced as a kind 01" objeet existing, so to speak,,j¡l a specific physical relation
to US , etc .- would be extremely rewarding. Cavell , again, has called atterition, in
conversation , to the sort of remernherillg that gocs into givin g all al:count of a
1l10vie, and more generally to the nature of the difficulties that are involved in
givin g slIch <ln account.
17 This is the vie\\' or Susan Sontag, whose various cssays, collected in AKaillsl
Jnl elprelalioll, arnount to perhaps the purest-, · certainl y the most egregious-­
exprcssion of what 1 have been cai'ling theatrical sensibilit y in recent criticismo In
this sense they are indeed the "casc studies lor an aestheric, a theory of my OWIl
scnsibility" that shc takes thern to be. In a charaeteristic passage Miss Sontag
contcnds:
Art loda)' is a nl:W kind nI' illstrulllent , (In instrulllcnt rol' 1l10difying
"IHlsci""sm;ss <lnd org:Illi1iIl ).' II <':\~ IIlodes ,,1' scnsibilit y. AmI the mcan s
I H:l
 " ,SU,\ . , . Al( 1 '1('1 A N , . t, 11 11 C' 11 H H 111

1(11 'pr;I('l ll lll p I11I ha ve hl'l'lI 1;1.11' .tll v ' \ Itll.h 01 P,d IlI CI's 11" k'lI gCI Ihl' ;IIIJ i\'II Ú' 111 Wllldl Iltl' ac1<.rs WlHlld II!JI iJc llli ry wilh Ihe c haraclcrs Ihey play
li:c l IlIl·rt l~d vc ~ l'Olllilh.:d lo c : l lI\ iI~ 111 11 1 1111 1111 , ""1 ~' lIll'l lly hai r. pho!u­ hu i ru lhe! wlI llld sltow Ihelll l"ol'lh. and in w hit.: h h:m pora lit y itscl!" would be
graph~ . wa X, ~ ¡¡ nJ . bicydc t ires . Ihc lI' O\VII 1,'olh"llI ~ h cs . alld soás .... pn:se lllcd ill ;¡ lIe\\' way:
Al! ki nds 01' <.:On velllionally an:c pt¡;d hOlllld:1I ies have Ihe reby be¡;1l
challenged: not just the one hetweell the "scictliili¡;" alld the " Ii lera r)' Just as the acto r no lon gcr ha s to persuade thc audience that il is Ihe
artistic" cultures , or the one bctween '\Irt " alld "non-art": bUI also many autho r's character and not hilllselr that is standing OH thc stage, SO also
established distinetions within Ihe world 01' eullure itself-· that between he need not prctcnd that the evcnts taking place on the stage have never
form and conten t, the frivolous and the serious, and (a fa\"Oritc of bcen rehearscd, and are 1I0W happenin g for the first alld ollly time.
literary intellectuuls) "high" and "Iow" culture. Schiller's d istinction is no longer va!id: that the rh a psodist has to treat
(pp. 296 .. ')7) his material as \Vholly ill the past: the mime his, as wh o lly here and no\\'.
It should be a ppa rent all through his performance that "even at the start
The truth is thal Ihe di stinclion betwecn the frivolOlls alld the scrious bccomcs and in the middle he knows ho\\' it ends" and he must "th us maintain a
more urgcnt, even absolute, every day, and the enterprises 01' the modernist arts calm independence throllghout." He llarrales lhe story of his character
more purel y Illotivated by rh e felt need to perpetualc the standards and values 01' by vivid portrayal, a lways knowing m o re than it does and treatin g
the high art of the past. "n 0\\ " and "here" no t as a pretence made possible by ¡he rules of thc
18 That is, the ac!Ua/ number ofsuch units in a given picce is fdt lo be arbitrary. and game bul as something to be distinguished from yesterday and some
the piece itself- despite the literalist preoccupation with wholistie forms- is seen other place, so as to Illake visible the knotting together 01' the events.
as a fragment of, or cut into, something infinitel y largcr. This is one of the most (p. 194)
important difrerences between literaliSI work and lTl ode rnisl painlillg, which has
made itself responsible for its physicallimits as never before. Noland's and Olitski's Butjust as the exposed li ghting Brechl advocates has become merely allother kind
paintings are two ob\'ious, and different, cases in point. It is in this connection, of theatrical convention (one, moreover, that often plays an important role in the
too, that th e important:e 01' the paintcd bands around the boltom and the top of preselltation 01' literalist work, as the installat io n view of Judd's six-cube piece
Olitsk i's sculpture, Bunga, becomcs clear. in the Dwan Gallcry shows). it is no t clcar whether the handling of time Brecht
19 The connection between spatial recession and sorne such experience oftcmporality calls for is tantamounl to authentic presentness., or merely to another kind of
- almost as if the first werc a kind of natural metaphor for the secolld- is pre­ prescl1ce- i.e .. to the presentment of time itself as th o ugh it were so me sort or
sent in much Surrealist painting (e.g .. De Chirico, Da li , Tanguy, Magritte . .. j. lileralisl object. In poetry the need for presenlness manifests itsell' in the Iy ric
Moreover, temponl'lity- manifested , for example, as expectation , drcad , anxiety, poem ; this is a subject that reqllires its own trealment.
prescntirnent, memory. nostalgia. stasis- is often the explicit subject 01' their f'or discu ssio ns of theatre relevant to this essay see Cavell's essay on Beckett's
paintings. There is, in fact, a deep affinity between Iiteralists and Surrealist sensib­ Du/-Gal11c, "En ding the Waiting Gallle," and " The Avoidance of Love: A Re ading
ility (at any rate, as the lalter makes itself felt in the work 01' the aboye pailJters). 01' King Lear," to be published in Must We lv[can Whal We Say?
which o ug ht to be no ted. Both employ imagery that is at once wh o listic and o iTl
a sensc, fragmentar)'. incomplete; both resort to a similar anthropo morphi zing
of objects 01' conglomerations of objecls (in Surrealism the use of dolls and man­
nikins makes this explicit): both are capable of achicving remarkable elTects of
" prese nce"; and both tcnd to deploy and isolate o bjects and persons in situa/iol1s
- the dosed room and the abandoned artificial lan dscape are as impo rtant to
Surrealism as to literalisrn. (Tony Smith , it wil1 be recalled , described the a irstrips,
etc., as " Surrcalist landscapes.") This amnity can be summed up by saying that
Surreali st sensibility. as manifested in the \York of ceFtain artists, and lileralist
sensibility are both lheatrica/. I do not wish , however, to he understood as saying
that because they are theatrical , alJ Surrealist \Yorks that share the aboye charac­
teristics fail as art; él conspicllüus example of major \York that can be described as
theatrical is Giacometli's SlIrrealist sculpture. On the o ther hand , it is perhaps no t
without significance that Smith's supreme example 01' a Surrealist landscape was
the parade ground at N uremberg.
20 What this means in each art will naturally he differe nt. For examplc, lIlusic's
situation is especially difficult in that music sharcs with theatre the cOIl\'ention,
if 1 may eall it th al, of duration- a convention that, I am sllggcsting, has itsdr
beco me increasing ly theatrical. Besides, the ph ysica l circullls!am:cs 01' a concert
cl osely rese mble those of a theatrical performa nce, 1I rn ay Iwvc hee n Ihe d ~si rc fo r
sOlllelhing like prese ntness Ihat, al leas! lO SP!l1e I!XIC III. kd Il réc hl lo ad vocate a
no nillusi o nis!ie Iheal re, in which rorcxlI mplc Ih \:! S1:I )'I.· lill ltl illl'. w(lllld be visiblc lo

1 XCI I K7

76
THE OBJECT OF
PERFORMANCE
devices of a new oral history) actually aware of that present's loss. "AII
Aesthetics in the seventies
participate in another pcrson 's (or thing's) mortalily , vulnerability, mutab­
llenry Sayre
Sllurcc: Th e (jeorg;u R el';l'lI' 37(1) (1983): 169 188.
"A modernist would have to rewrite Pater's dictum that all art aspires to the
condition of mllsic," Susan Sontag announced in her scries 01' essays On
Pho/Ography. "Now all art aspires to the condition ofphotography .'" In fact,
one of the most important aesthetic devc\opments of the seventies will
probably turn out to be the art establishment's embracing of photography.
epitomized by the popular success ofSontag's book itself. And at least part of
the 1970's affair with photography is directly attributab1c to the medillm 's
insistence on complicating- and accommodating--Pater's dictllm. That is,
Pater defined the art object as something we know only through "i mpressions ,
unstable, flickering, inconsistent, which burn and are extinguished with our
consciousness of them. " He was never intcrested in anything of " solidity,"
but only in "experience itsc\f ... that continual vanishing away, that strange.
perpetual weaving and unweaving of ourselves." 2 For him , the art object was
the mere token, the trace , of an aesthetic experiencc forever 10st, a thing
al ways announcing absence.
For Sontag, photography gives Pater's diclllm Ihe modernist turn o A
photograph is, of course, an object in its own right, irrefutably present.
To borrow Murray Kreiger's phrase, it can be "plucked out of all discourse
as its own c10scd system ," just like any poem or painting':' From this sort
of formalist perspcctive, aeslhetic cxperience is never absent: it is always
dyn amical1y present before us , endlessly recoverable in the work of art ilse1f.
In o rder 10 j ustity itseJf as art, photography has consistc ntly insisted tha t il
be co nsidercd as jllsl such <In imm(/I/enl i,\'! ~) h i cc l :' HuI whal So ntag means
11) lillggcsl. I thi nk, is Ihal Ihe pa sl c.Jcl·atk'.¡ illl\.· I¡;~1 il! pl!o l l)glarhy can he
lra\.:ed lo ils d Ollhlc Sl all ec ils a hil ily lo b~' 1 ~';l iI 111 I ~' I III ', n I' ho!/¡ pl c:..cncc
IXX
1IIIr 1111.11 ': ( ' 1' 01" 1'1: 1{1 : ()RJ\.It\N( ' I '
amI abscncc. Wc cx pericncc ph olography as prescncc itsclf - as a formalist
:Ir! objcCI amI as a presence signifying the virtual absence 01' sorne a priori
cxperience. I think it is fair to say, for instance. that even the tourist or family
l11an photographs in order to capture the present- - ·that is, with more or less
iml11anentist intentions- but he looks al photographs in the slide show or
ramily album (both of which can be usefully described as the mnemonic
photographs are 111f'l17enlO mori," Sontag \vrites. "To takc a photograph is lo
ility. Precisely by slicing out this moment and freezing it, all photographs
testify to time's relentless mell " (p. 15).
What Ied the art world to rcad photography as the cmbodiment of such
él dialcctical play between presencc and absence is, probably more than
anything else, the way in which conceptual and performance art- -th at is,
contemporary art's most antiformalist, experience-oriented forms- have come
to rely on the medium as a mode of " presentation. " By the late sixties it was
clcar to virtually everyone connected \Vith the art world that the art object per
se had become, arguably, dispensable. As early as 1966, Harold Rosenberg
had titled a collection ofessays on contempora.ry art The Anxiolls Objeu, and
what t.he object was anxious about \Vas its very slIrvival. In 1968 Lucy
Lippard's important and influential essay "The Dematerialization of Art "
announccd the birth of conceptual art , in which "matter is denied ." And by
1975, when Barbara Rose isslled a new edition 01' her Americul1 Arl Sil1ce
/900·-a work so univcrsally used as a classroom tcxt that it pro bably rep­
resents the consensus viewpoint- she \Vas compelled to inelude a new chapter
on the seventies simply entitled "Beyond the Object."5 i\s this development
became more and more obvious during the last decade, it became increasingly
clear as well that the museum-designed to hOllse and display objects after
all- was as deeply in trouble as the object ilself. What saved the museum ,
what in effect gave it access to objectless art, was the document , the record of
lhe art event that survived the event. More often than not this document
Imned out to be a photograph .
The importance of this photographic record was probably first established
by kan Tingllcly 's famolls Homage 10 New York , the \Vondcrful machine
sClllpturc which destroyed itself in the Sc ulptllre garden 01' the MlIsellm
nI' Modern i\ rt on 16 March 1960: the photographic record asscrted itself
l110st horribly in the photographs of Rudolf Schwarzkogler's 1969 piece-by­
picce amputation of his own penis, exhibited at Kassel in 1972. By the early
scvcllties, at any rate, mosl self-respecting modern collections inclllded
sorne kinJ of performance pieee, which often meant only that it " owned"
;) l"rJllcep lu al idea 01', more malerially, the rights to pholographs ooc ument­
IlI g al! CVCllt (a s the M lI seurn 01' M~)Jcrn Art still owns the rights to the
ph()l ographs ofTingllc ly's IIl1l1wgC') , Whíl l has !> lI rp riscd even the Illuseum,
hmvCVCI . is Ihe p~)wc r lhcse dOI'lIlIIl.'I1 I .. "1:\.'11 1 lo pm;s\!ss, IH)( \lI1ly in lhe
IWI
 \ 1"U -,f l Al! 1 AR 1
Pllhlic il1lilginu lillfl h uI IlVl~1 1111' IIlI hl'\ 1I 11 I h~' II'. wllld l has h,:c ll rncl a lllor­
phúsiL.cd hy Ihcm inlo SOlllClhillg ICSCIl l bl lllf : 111 , ltl'll ~lIl(l g il.:al Jeposilory.
The inlrusion 01' the photographil.: d ()~uJllcn l illll' I he pailll ing amI sClIlp­
ture collcclions of the maj or museums ha:; helpcJ . in rad , lo make cxplicit a
transformation that has been going on since alleast Abstract Expressionism.
In a gesture that ca n be seen as the impetus for the acsthetic devclopments
under discussion here, the Abstract Expressionists recognized that the Action
Painting itself was the mere record of the series of moves which was the
action 01' painting. The " work " as activity is privileged in this way over the
"work " as product. A museum might well have purch ased a Pollock. but
it could never purchase the action 01' Pollock painting--the event itself, the
real work.
When we begin to approach paintings in an art museum, cspecially in a
modern art museum , in the same way that \Ve approach , say, the arms and
armor collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art--that is, when we
approach tbem as relics- we are at the edge 01' admitting a profound shift in
our collective attitude about the nature 01' art. Art is no longer that thing in
which full-fledged aesthetic experience is held perpetually present; art no
longer transcends history; instead , it admits its historieity, its implication
in time.
But J said that \Ve are at the e(~~e of admitting this transformation beca use
the aesthetics 01' presence has a final line of defense- the audience. The
audience has the privilege of ignoring the art\Vork's eontingent status as
a kind 01' documentary evidence; in fact, the audience knows first that it is
experiencing art (it has come to the m useum in order to do so), and the real
presence 01' the one experience (the audience's) quite literally masks- and
paradoxically depends on--the absence 01' the other (the artist's) , Even the
documentary status 01' the photograph can be altered by the audienee. When
it approaches, ror instance, the photographs 01' Tinguely's HO/11age or Vito
Acconci's 1971 Seedbed (the famous image 01' a solitary woman, hands in
jacket pockets, standing in the Sonnabend Gallery on the ramp beneath
which Acconei was purportedly masturbating), it sharcs precisely the same
direct, ocular vision which the photographer, eye pressed to viewfinder,
witnessed at the scene , What the photographer knows for having seen, the
audience knows. His presence becomes their own. They contemplate with
his eycs. And the museum, of course, does everything in its power to foster
the audience's sense of presence by creating exhibition spaces which bring
antiquity into the present. Thomas Hoving, when director of the Metro­
politan Museum of Art, was something of a master at this. From his first
exhibition , the tellingly titled 1966 "In the Presence of Kings" (which drew
together most of the objects in the museum associaled with royalty in order
10 achíeve él st ri kingly reg'dl atmosphere). 10 t h~ ncw 1 d unan wing 01" the
nlllSClIll1 (wh ich esscntia lly repl icares Lch nl:1 n's hPlllc ,lI1d which a llows
olle nol mcrc1 y lo cX [1cricllcc arl nul tll C\pC ll elll'~ Wll il l il 111 liS! have le ll
I 'lO
111 1 C'IIIII ' I 111' I'l ilt'I /C I IIM I\NC I'
It ke lu he I \,; 11 11 1111 1 allJ ,111 '/1 il) , lhe flId alll\ll'phusis which lhe dOclllllcnt/
\lhjc!,;1 wrcak cJ 111)(,,111 lhc IllllSeU I\l, lran sfonning it inlo él mausoleum. is
l'ulIllll~rL'd lhrough éln :tudicllcc in Wh0111 the dead pas! is seemingly broughl
hack lo life_
(iranted. this audicncc is l11anipulated in that its experience of presence is
Ically the experiem:e 01' what Sontag has called a kind 01' " pseudopresence";
llL'wrlhclcss, it seems clear to me that by the sevcnties the site 01' -presence
in (lrt had shifted frol11 art's object to art's audience, from the textual or
plaslic to the experiential. Art/órul1I magazine, which clearly attempts to stay
dosely attuned to currents in contemporary art , inaugulaled the eighties with
a <.juestionnaire asking a number 01' aJtists to consider the proposition that
scventies art was "characterized more by a change in attitude toward the
audience than hy a change in actual forms , or even content." Specifically lhe
magazine's editors asked , " What shifts in emphasis, esthetic or otherwise,
have impermanence and specificity of project and performance art brought
ahout,?"6 The range 01' responses was predictably broad , but it seems to me
lhat the artists agree more or les s on three fundamental points, articulated
well by Vito Acconci , Scot1 Burton , and Eve Sonneman:
A cconci: [By choosing to] use the gallery as the place where lhe
" art" actually occurred .. , I was shifting my coneentration from
" art-doing" "art-experiencing" : an artwork would be done speeifieally
.tó¡- a gallery- in other words, for a peopled space, for a space in
which there were gallery-goers. The gallery, then , could be thought
of as a community meeting-place, a place where a cOlllmunity could
be formed, where a community could be called to order, called lo a
particular purpose.
Burton: A new kind 01' relationship [with the audience] seems to he
beginning to evolve, a deep shift beginning in our needs: toward a
visual culture of design 01' applied art. The new descriptive phrases
101' the culture haven 't been coineu yet, but it might be called public
art. Not beca use it is necessarily located in public places, but beca use
the content is more than the private history ofthe maker. It might be
called popular art , not because it is a mass arto but beca use it is not
unpopular art, not a "difficult" or "critical " art. Visual art is moving
away from the hermetic , the hieratic, the self-directed, toward more
civil.', more outer-directed, less self-important relations with social
history.
Sonnemall: The audience was given a multiplicity of choices in lhe
final wo rks : to observe meaning in gestures, motion, perceptual
cha ngl!s from hlack am i whi lc lo color, in invented time sequences
bClwccll lhc fralm:s. Thc alld icnw I.:ould huild ils own :.yntax 01'
cSlhl!l il' pk as urc \)r inll!l k-I'lll :t! W\ II (.. . JI was opcn,
PI I
 Y I )i I J¡\ 1 ¡\ It I AN l í l'1 i lti-íiltl\1.\N / ' 1 !\R I
I I I ~ sl nl l ill llw :I l:l'l: pleu slle 0 1 pl'l'Sl'lIll' 11Ilplili l in Ihcse I\!sptl nses, I"mm
objccl Lu a ud ience, has had prnlú lI ml ~' '' I..'~' I .. 1111 ,11 1 gC lIcl'ally. It has llpelled
;t ri to lhe plurality 01" intc rpretatioll. 11 has IHld Iht: clrec\, more and more
prollollllL"ed as Ihe sevcnties progresscd, o l"valori/i ng "popular" art I"onns
such as photography itself- -over " high" art, or at least blurring the dis­
tinclion betweell high an<.l low. And it has given rise to a grea t <.leal oflllore or
less po/i{ica//y orientcd artlt'ork- that ¡s. artwork ex.plicitly addressed to the
co m l11l1nity as a social institution.
In fact, as Michacl Fried has pointed out (in perhaps the earliest essay to
examine lhe acsthetic assumptions of pe rfo rmance art, his 1967 "Art an<.l
b.iecthood"), one of the distinguishing, and to him disturbing, character­
isl ics 01' performance art is its ide%gü:al thrust. If art gives priority to the
audience --- the masses, as it were- then art must also divest itself 01' its more
ditist assumptions, which tend to be defined in terms of the academy- that
¡s. traditional Iiterary alld art eritieism- most especiaJly the academy's
priviluging 01' the art object as a formal and authoritative entity. Fried, for
IlIslam:e, is vehement in his attack on Minimal Art-" Ar{ ck:generales as iI
ellll/machc.\' {he tondilion olt/¡eatre" [his em phasis]- because he is a formalist
wllll recognizes the inappropriateness of a formalist approach to an ar! which
"¡/¡ 'llend,l' 011 lhe beholder, is il1tomp/ete without him ... has been waiting fo r
l1 illl , , , rcfuses, obstinately, to let him alone- whieh is to say, it refuses to
stop ctll1fronting him, distancing him , isolating him. " For Fried it is neither
Ihe cnndition of music nor the condition 01' photography-- certainly not
t "ca ter . to which art ought to aspire, but "to the condition of painting and
sClllpture -the condition , that is, of existing in, indeed 01' secreting or const i­
tllting a continuous and perpetual prcsent."7This is a profoundly immanentist
(,Jc/inition 01' the condition 01' art --and it implicitly posits that art, since it is
"o ut nI' history, " is by definition free of ideology, or ought to be.
By now it should be clear that the primary ditTerence between an immanentist
aesthetics of prescnce and what I \Vould like to refer to as an ,lesthetics of
abscllce--that is, an aesthetics which admits the place of absence in art- is
preL'isely one of history. An aesthetics of presence seeks to transcend history,
lo escape temporality. An aesthetics of absence subjects art to the wiles of
hislory, embraces time (though , as is true of Pater, not always happily) . An
aesthetics 01' presence defines art as that which transcends the quotidian ; an
acsthetics ofabsence accepts thc quotidian's impingemellt upon art. F or lhe
(lne, art is absolute; for the othcr, it is contingent. The one sees itself as
bcyond the politics in which the other views itself as inevitably implica teu.
In a discussioll 01' thc public and political poetry o f Denise LeverlOv, Charles
!\llicri has ou tlin eJ lhe politicallimitatio ns 01' tlw iJl1rnanentist position:
r he a\,;sLhc lics 01" prcscncc is esse nti all y 1I 1()lliN IIC ('o lluciv illg cvil as
basically o nly n privat io ll , a fa ilurc I() Pl'fl 'l'IVl' nl/IL'( lI y m lo a lign
11l 1l.: ' S l' I H1Sl'itl Will~'SS will! Ihe Jal en l hillll1l11lhlll' l lld l' l~ or a givclI
I !I"
1 11 1 () 11 li t ' '1 1)\ ' l' F \( 1, 11 1I 1\-1 ¡\ N (' L
sccnc. Th c d lClI lI1 is Ihat pm pcr actioll will I"oll ow from a correct
1IIlIIerstalldilll', or, morc radically, a correct positioning in which the
1ll1derstanding receivcs its "sentences" from the situation . But how­
ever appealing the metaphysics of this vision might be, the realm
01' politics is largely constitutcd by the need to correlate different
visions and priorities. When faced \Vitb practical choices, one can
hardly escape the fundamental d ualist conceptions of the elifTerences
between people 's perceptions and. when perceptions agree, elilTer­
ences between th e priorities accoreled to what is perceived.
(p. 235)
An aesthetics of absence, on the other hand, is essentially pluralistic. It believes
that its voice will at least be a significant one in the dialogue of the political
arena, and it drcams that it \ViII be the voice which correlates the differing
visions and priorities of polítical reality. As opposcd to an aesthetics 01' pres­
~nce, \vhich conceives of art as a mode 01' consciousness, an aesthetics 01' abseoce
considers art a mode 01' praxis or action , an instrument 01' social change.
11.
It is hardly accidental that the rise 01' performance art in the United States
during the sixties coincided \Vith the growing politicization 01' the nation as
a whole. To sorne degree the Civil Rights Movement, but espeeially lhe
Vietnam War, fueled antiformalist and antiacademic sentimen ls alread y
indigenous to the art world (the formalist aeademics were, by and large, also
the critics who sometimes maele but more often simply ignored an artist's
career). The new polítical c1imate demanded 01' the art community a level 01'
involvement which in the more hakyon fifties would have seemed absurdo In
lIorthern California , performance art emerged in connection with the 1967
San Francisco Be-Ins in Gol<.len Gate Park , at the Peace March ofthat same
ycar, and during the 1969 Peop!e's Park demonstrations in Berkeley; in the
lIlore conservative southern part 01' the state, it developed later, but still
frol1l a political base-the feminist movement 01' the early seventies. ~ In New
York, performance \vas one of the strategies which grew out of the overtly
pnliticized Art Workers' Coalition , a diverse group of New York artists
ami frientls who organized early in 1969 in order to take on the Museum
nI" Mot!ern Art, which was chosen to represent "the Art System" by virtue of
its "rank in tbe \Vorld , its Rockefeller-studded Board 01' Trustees with all
Ihe attendan t polítical and economic sins attached to such a group, its prop­
aga tinn 01' the star system and consequent dependence on galleries and col­
I CCI ()r~. its l11uülten a nce 01' a :;alc , b lue-chi p collection, and o pa rt ieu Jarl y, its
lack 0 1" cllnLacl wi th lhe é1rt comm llllil y a mJ recent ar1. " A t the open heari ng
whic h Icd lO 111\: c\~¡¡J ilil)l1's I"IHlIlI.hlll' al l ¡;ri , i\.' .llId edilor G rcgory Battcock
stal cd th e pp lllical pmhl clll L::( plid ll y'
l ln
 V I S U i\ L i\ R T i\ N J) P E R F O R M A N CI: i\ IU
The trustees of the museums direct NBC and C BS, The Nell' )'ork
Times , amI the Associateo Press , and that greatest cul t ural tra vesl y
01' mooern times-·--the Lincoln Center. They own I\.T. &1"., Ford,
General Motors, the great multi-billion oollar foundations, Columbia
University, A1coa , Minnesota Mining, Uniteo Fruit, ano I\MK , besioes
sitting on the boaros 01' each other's museums. The implications 01'
these facts are cnormous. Do you realize that it is thosc art-loving,
culturally committco trustees of the Metropolitan ano Mooern
museums who are waging the war in Vietnam?~
The coalition eventually issueo a set of oemanos to the M useum of Moo­
crn Art, most of which were ignoreo . tt manageo to close the Modern , the
Whitney, ano the Jewish muse ums on the occasion of the first Vietna m
Moratorium Day (15 October 1969), but coulo only establish a picket line
arouno both the Metropolitan ano the Guggenheim since they rcfused to
dose . In shorL the coalition hao little effect on the System. But it dio alert a
large number 01' New York artists to the commodity status of their art, ar
ralher to the horrifying possibility (horrifying especially in the context of the
war) that the investment consumer, often incorporateo , was metamorphosiz­
ing the artist's aesthetic object into the marketplace's eommooity. The strategy
Illost often offereo as a counter to this metamorphosis was , of course, to
Illake art which was objectless, art which was conceiveo as uncollectable and
IIllbuyable because intangible. In these terms, art became a useful instrument
I,r change, insofar as it absenteo itself as an object.
But objectless art- whether conceptual or performance orienteo 1°- has
Inoven itself analogous to Borges' famous hrónir of Tlón , the accioental but
apparently inevitable proo ucts of mental activity undertakcn as pure concep­
IlIal play. Harolo Szeeman, one of Europe's most sensitive critics 01' Conceptual
Arl, unoerstooo as early as his 1969 survey at the Berne KunsthaIle, entit1eo
II'/¡ en Allitudes Become Form , that the term Conceptualisl/1 was a misnomer
which tenoeo to renoer the very material products 01' Conceptual practice
IIlsignificant, when in fact the concept's apparently inevitable material mani­
kslation was part of its intercst. This \Vas one of the points 01' the Szeeman·
Ilrganizeo Documenta 5 exhibition in Kassel in 1972, the exhibition which
IIllveileo the photographs ol' Ruoolph Schwarzkogler's " amputation piece. "11
The point is, as critic Luey Lipparo , one of the 1eaoing flgures in the Art
Workers' Coalition. would come to aomit: "[Many], like myself, hao exagger­
alL'J illllsions about the ability of a ' oematerialization of the art objcct' to
slIbvert the commooity status ano political uses to whieh suceessflll American
arl hao been subjecteo." It becamc obvious to Lippard. ano many others, thal
"Iemporary, chcap, invisible , or reprooucible art has ma Je little Jifference ill
Ihc wa y art and arti st are ecollomically anu ideologica lly c xp l(l it l!d . " I ~
In ma ny respccls, pelfl'rm a ncc has cllcirdcd iLsl'lf wll " :1 llIyth o logy 01'
presence in orlll:r t\) oc!"c.:a l. or al Icast mit igale. l it\. l'tlll Il IlC ICI:l1 cxploilalil11l
I'}II
" ": /lJI , II ~ ( ( 11 PI ' H H IIU,,' ¡\ N I · 1·
III il s lraces. By ~ I v ill g (1 ' illrily lo Ihe cx pnien cé or IIJc Pl'lforlnallLT ilsdr
I'ilhl'llhe artist 's ex periencc 01' lIJe a udieucc's , allllOugh, as in lhe Ilappening,
dislinclions bCl wccn artisl and audicnce tend to break oown so Ihat both
hccLlll1e whal mighl be callcd an "cxpcrielll:íng cOlllmunity"-·· the oocument­
ary rl:cord 01' lhe evenl is eondcmned to seconoarity. In fact , performance
¡(oculIIcnls generall)' appcar so eonsciously "a rtless " ano amateurish in oroer
II! contrasl wilh what \Ve must assume was the arl!úll1fSS of thc event itself,
Ihcrcby emphasizing the oistance of the trace from its source. But again ano
i1 gain these oocumenls nevertheless manage to assert themselves as art objects
ill Iheir own right- -at limes their ability to malerialize seems almost perverse
and it is nol solely the tireless invenliveness of the marketplaee which
rein\lcsls them with aesthetic priority.
The issues are probably clearest in the new oral poetry movement in liter­
alure. Like conceptual ano performance art, the new oral poetry was a reaction
ag:ainst a rormalist ano acaoemic criticism which overvalueu the poem as an
objeet in its own right, as a closeo syslem which is wholly, steaoily, ano per­
lIlanently before uso But it has become increasingly clear to American poets,
especially as they have become more ano more familiar with post-Saussurian
linguistics ano the N ew French Criticism, that the sanctity of thc written
lext- the very possibilily of its possessil1K any meaningful signification .­
is at lea sI q uestionable. 1n the face 01' this absence of meaning, the tenoency
has been to create a new mythology 01' presence- that is, a mythology
01' performance. In the new oral poetry, meaningful significatíon is often
mereJy relocateo in the voiceo utterance ·- the supposition is that the written
lext is inherently removeo from meaning because it is the mere recol'O oftlle
1Il0ment of primary signification in the speech aet. Bul in this scheme, experi­
cntial presence merely supplants textual presence, ano oral poetry falls victill1
lo Ihe same beliefin the simllltaneity ofsouno ano sense whieh Plato posits in
Iris Phaedrus ano which unoerlies Saussurian linguistics, the notion ofs ·e/llendre
!lar/er which Derrioa so convincingly occonstructs in OI Grmnmatology.1.1
The work of each of these poets - in fact th e work of almost any poet who
can be placeo in the Williams/Olson traoition that conceives of the poem as a
"licIo of aclion " whose unit of measure is the " breath " (poets like Duncan ,
('reeley. ano Levertov)- is susceptible to the same oeconstruction to which
Derrioa submits Sa ussure.
Take, ror example, Allen Ginsberg's oiscussion of " Woros ano Conscious­
IICS::; " : "A la nguage oescription of an event is not ioentieal with an even\, is
an abslraelion 01' the event. ... Howcver, if someone wantco to, they coulo
redefine the whole use 01' language ano say there's another use 01' it which
is Pllrely exprcssive, subjectively expressive, where the breath exhaled is a
ml1scious articulalion 01' feeling ... [ano] therel'ore spoken breatll , ' Ah-om '
or "Oh" or " lJ uuh ," is identieal witlr the cvent that it describes. beea use it is
Ihc cvcnt. "14 T lris idea c.xpluins Ihe lit lc or Grnsberg's 1977 M ind B realhs:
Ihe poc m is a Illind hrea th, <111 ultcra llCC whidl hc lkseribes in lhe tille pocm
1'/
 VISIIA' ¡\I<I \NII l'I IHI ,' iíitr.r ,\ IH ' 1 AlU
,1 ' , "1111: vasl brcalh 01' ('u nscio us m:ss ' l · 1'III'l tl 1v hlllll IIII.! s\.!vcn ties, thl.!lI,
(il/ls!lerg's boo Ks- lhe printeJ lcx ls h ave hl.'l.'ll hy his l)WIl ddinilioll. ab­
,~Iraclions 01' the event 01' Ihe poelry ilsell': thl!)' Call11()t bl.! identical with tnae
poetry beca use they are not spoken. T his stance is lIlHkrscorcd in Ginsbcrg's
latest work by bis inclusion 01' musical scores ror the performance 01' many
of the son g/ poems- a habit he began in his Firsl Blues. Rags, Ballads und
Har/11ol1illl11 SOllgs 197 / 74. a book which grew oul of his improvisation
sessions with Bob D ylan in Ginsberg's apartment on th e Lowcr East Side.
In these terms. the oral poelry-reading Iradition. which de veloped in New
York City between 1960 and 1970 with Paul Bl ack b u rn at its center and
which in tmn spawned a revival of poe lry readings around the country . can
he sccn as the necessary condition 01' poetic art. Sinee /lO one can ever trust
his ()wn reading of a wri tten poem , he has to experience the poet himself
H.:a ding it (and Blackburn's sometimes manjc desire to record every reading
(111 tape is a further manifestation 01' this desire to capture the "authentic"
1" )cm). The supposition is that in hearing we understand (s 'en/ene/reparter),
nI' al least he/ler understand. But tlle poetry reading is such a small- if not
tf()wnright e1itist- event , governed by the eontingencies of time and place,
I hal il ignores the major portion 01' poetry 's already small audience. It would
ul' comse be possible for the new oral poetry to address that heterogeneous
crowd of book readers v..-hich is its larger audience in the same way that music
addrcsses its larger audience--that is, it could disseminate its performance
by means of record and tapc-and to a certain extent it has tried to do this
(ror instance, through the Poet's Audio Center in Washington, O.c.). But the
ovcrwhclming impulse has been, instead, toward the printing 01' trans­
criptions of the performed piece- what Cieorge Quasha has called " the
tcxtualization" ofthe new oral poetry.16
The relationship 01' the oral poet to his written text differs from poet to
poet. Jerome Rothenberg, for instance, illsists on the wrillen nature ofhis work ,
bul it is written down not with "the idea of book or text as the authorit­
alive, coereive version of some absolute tnath , changeless because written
dnwn and visible." Instead he writes. in both his translalions of tribal/oral
pl1etry and his own work, so that for the poem to be appreciated it must be
pe rl'orm ed heard- as 1 think this textualization from " The Tenth lIorse­
Sllng 01' F rank Mitchel1 (Blue)" suggests:
(Jo to her my son N \Vnn & go to her my son N wnn
N wnnn N nnnn N gahn
Go to her my son N wnn & go to her my son N wnn
N wnnn N nllnn N gahn . 17
David AnUn , llll Ihc nlll\.!r hanJ , Ihin ks 01' lhe rnarr illkss ¡¡Ild ]lllllcluat io n­
les ... Icx ls lll' hi l'> nolllrio ll s "tulk-pocms" as ;1 \~,¡ v I d II ~·~'IIII'. Ihe lIótu tional
:'\VS ll'llI 11'11 /11 ¡¡ "l:o nvell lIPll ali/cú" sl ylc "whid l 11,1 ': IWi 111 111 (1 /'I cid l,hsLl clc
1 )(,
'
1111 , ()II.1l: ( ' ! 01; 1' 1 HI ' (J HM ¡\N( ' "
lo adlicvi llg a lly lhill g al all inlanguagc" bccau sc ils paragraphing, capitaliza­
lion, and hi crarchical logica l markcrs al1 rcpress " real talk." Traditional
Illltalion has Ihe "appearance 01' a language nobody talks. " and since Antin's
]luclry is lalk , he callnol use it.' ~ Rothenberg in effect uses the text as a \vay
lo Illake it possib1c ror the 01'<11 lo be reoralized. Antin as a way lo document
"'Iive presence," to represent the experience of"real talk. " Still . cach stance, in
its separate way. is immanentist: each projects the force oftbe presence which
\Ve expcricm;e in speech. But, paradoxically, each lea ves the presence of
speech for the secondarity 01' the texto the oral moment for its Íllscribed
reprcsentation . The problem with performance art is tbat in valorizing the
l'xpcriential - the moment ofperforrnance - it reduces its audienee lo the status
orthe coterie. What drives performance to objectify itself, lo ¡mee itself, is the
racl of its larger audiencc and the neeessity it feels to both ack nowledge and
address that audienee. But then the presence the audiencc feels in speech is
not the "Iive presence" 01' the artist. The larger audience always revoices the
poem for itsc1f. 1n its textualization, the oral poem accedes to interpretation ,
lo hearing itselfspoken. perhaps unrecognizably, in the myriad dialects ofthe
vox populi .
UI.
Those who see oral poetry as a revolutionary rejection of the text are mis­
reading, ifnot its more idealistic and initial intentions, then at least its curren t
practice. Oral poetry is rejecting not so much the text itself as the logoce ntric
and quasi-metaphysical attitude toward the text which invests it with priority
alld ultimatc authority. Even the A11en Ginsberg 01' Mind Brealhs conccives
ol'the text in this way, more or less explicitly in a poem Iike " Returning to the
('ountry for a Brief Visit. " The poem consists 01' nine briel' translations 01'
!\mitendranath Tagore's Sung poetry and Ginsberg's annotations of each
olle. Hcre is part 01' one and the entirety or another:
'" YOIl ¡¡ve apor! Off rillers alld seas . . ."
Vou Iivc in apartments by rivers and seas
Spring comes. waters !low murky, the sa1t wave's
covered with oily dung
* * '"
" / ollva)!s rcmem/)er !he yeor / mode il over /he
l110Wllain pass."
RI) biIlS ano sparrows warblc in m ild spring dusk
slIn scls hc hin d greell pl ll CS ill Ihe I¡ll le v;.¡lIcy
I I¡gll o ver Illy I'\l\)f g rey b n lnd ll~1; ~'A a y gen ll)' lInder
11101 iOl1l ess douds
¡!n
 V I ~W ¡\ I i\R I "NI) 1 'I ~ ItJll) ltMI'N ¡"I ~ ¡\lt I
Iluntl:rs g UlIs SllUlIlkd lhn;\.: lilll\.:S in lit... Ili ll slIJl' as p~1l
The hOllsc sat silcnt as 1 Il)t)k\.:u abov\.: my hnok,
quiet okl poems abollt Yi & Tsangpo R ivers
1 always remcmber lhe spring 1 c1imbed G lacicr Peak
with Gary , (pp. 20- 21)
Ginsberg is not merely returning to the country; he is returning to the le XL
both the Sung text and his own textua!ization of il (small things- like th e
comma aftcr " book," which inscribes disrllption- indicate that this poem is
first of all IFri/len down). The poem is the scene, in facC 01' lrtlnslaliol1 , in all
senses of the word , an inter play between interprctation and rcpresentation.
presence ano absence, stasis and change, poem-as-object ano poem-as-evenl,
the translation of each term to the other and back again.
But most of all the poem suggests that poetry approaches the conoition of
its criticism, ano not merely because it consciously engages in the interpre­
tation 01' a text. What Ginsberg's poem suggests is that the critical act is an
integral part orthe creative process. Since the Sung poem is open to Ginsberg's
re-vision of il, the implication is that Ginsberg's poem is in turn open to uso
We can ano willuse it, or abuse it (the point, l think, ofhis " oily oung") as we
wish. This is likewise the point. 1 think , of a poem like John Ashbery's " Self­
Portrait in a Convex Mirror," which for many is the quintessential poem of
the sevenlies. Ashbery conceives of Parmigianino's self-portrait as " a recur­
ring wave/ Of arrival " which is also like " the game where/ A whispereo phrase
passeo arouno the room/ Enos up as something oifferent. " 19 The poem posits
two kinos of presence: on one hano, "the portrait 's will to enoure" as an
object in its own right over ano aboye what we wish to make of it, ano on th e
other, the series of presents which constitutes whatever "present" meaning
the painting holos for us , each a little oifferent from the last, each conoitioned
by what Ashbery labeJs le lemps, the exigencies 01' time ano place. The
oialogue between the recalcitrant object ano Ashbery 's interpretation of it
the way each impinges upon the other. art upon lite ano !ife upon art- is
the subject 01' the poem .
The eminence i\shbery 's "Sclf-Portrait" holos in the oecade 's critical canon
is probably more oue to this willingncss simply to problematize- and not
resolve··-art 's relation to its auoience than anything else. Photography, especi­
ally the more it asks us to approach it as art, embodies more or less the same
problematics; not surprisingly, in poems Iike "City Afternoon " and " Mixeo
Feelings" photography is explicitly i\shbery's subject matter (and I woulo
~ lIggest that pcrhaps the best way to read the very beaulirul "Voyage in th e
Olue" is as a reveric ins pired by a photographic illl agc). T his is lO S3y that
b(l lh i\shbery's "Scl f-Portrai t" an u photogra ph y in gl.: nl'ra l have r\!t:o.!Íved so
IIlIll'h ¡,:rilical atlcn lio n bct:a usc lhey so Ih o roll ~lil y ;Idd .. ·ss IIIt' nitical issuc
ori lle uc¡,:alk' Ihe Ihrea l 1\) Ihé a rl llb jl!l.:t 's a ll llH1ri lv IlIl d ill ll'g llty wh k h lhe
alld ll' III.'l''s rlc~JllI lI lu ill lCrp rd inevila hl v rll:SII PIII',I''i
IeH,
1111 : tlBJLC I ( H PI'IU'O R I\1 i\N C[
Still an o lher \Vay 01' puUing this is to say that criticism in lhe seventies
has had to respolld in one way or another lo a critical position that has
bccn best articulateo by Jacques Derrida. In an important sense, Derrida is to
lhe !iterary establishment whal performance ano conceptual art are to lhe
museum: he exposes the weaknesses of the System, points out its strategic
ellipses, and undemlines its authority- to borrow his word. he decO/1.\.".uCls
it. Derrida has exerteo the influence he has beca use he has articulated an
antiformalist aesthetic- an aesthetics of absencc- better than anyone clse.
The vocabulary of absence is above all Derridean . His phiJosophical project
has been to ex pose those \Vho belong to " the Illetaphysics of presencc," who
dream 01' " the simple exteriority of death to life, evil to good , representation
to presence, signifier to signified, represen ter to representeo , mask to face ,
writing to speech ."20 He does not seek to substil ute absence for presence
(death 1'01' life, evil for good .. . writing for speech), but rather to collapse the
distinction between presence and absence, priority and seconoarity, not b y
synthesizing them , but by oefining the trace (or more specificalJy, for Derrida,
writing itself) as the grouno 01' their interplay.
Most of the vocabulary which Derrida has developed to oescribe this
ground (and which has in turn been appropriated by American literary
criticism) is markeo by the same intentional doubleness ano purposeful
ambiguity of reference which distinguishes the word [race . Spur. différante,
borderline, hinge, silllulacrum, supplement--all are presences that announce
absence. And alJ are words which Sontag could substitute with little or no
oifficulty for her metaphor 01' photography. To say that alJ art aspires to the
condition of photography is to say that alJ art aspires to the condition of the
lrace, the spur, the supplement, to lhe conoition 01' diff"éral1ce. For Sontag,
Derrida's two essays on Artaud in Wrilil1g and Dijference constitute the
"single most brilJiant analysis" of Artaud 's work beca use he not only recog­
nizes that Artaud's quest was for "an art without works, a language without
a trace . .. apure creation of life, which woulo not fall rrom the body then
to decline into a sign or a work , an object," but that " in[acl , against all his
intentions, Arlaud hao to reintroduce the prerequisite orthe writtcn text into
·productions.' " 21 1t is this same dialectical interplay be1\veen the object and its
performance, a rt's presence ano absence. that informs Derrida's attraction to
Ja bes, whose Livre des quesliol1.1' embodies the paraooxical nature 01' writing
itself, the "sacrifke of existence to the word, as Hegel said, but also the eon­
sccralion of existence by the word."12 (" The force 01' photographic images,"
writes Sontag, "comes from their being material realities in their own right,
richly informativc deposits left in the wake 01' whatcver emitted them, potent
Illcans 01' tu rn ing the tables on reality-for turning il into a shadow. Images
are morl: rca l than anyone cou ld have supposed " [p. 180]. Existence is at once
sacrifi \.JCu and cllnsccra ted in 1h¡; plH)togr<lrh as wel\. a no the photograph,
J cl lIlCU ,IS a rich ly inro n1 lali ve (/' 'fI fI.I'il lc ft ill Ihe wake üf whatever emittcd it.
is d earl y iI 1m,·" .) r'llr Dcrnda , I' hihp pr Sn lkrs' lHWd NOlI/hn '.I' is in lercsli ng
1"'1
 VISUi\ 1 AI(I ANII I' H IU " t -q t~ I ¡\NI.'I 1\ 1(1
be.:ause it is a book abou t preSCJ1l:e ill Wllldl" lu JlIl:SI.' IH'l' II \:slja mais présl!ll!c,"
and his own G/as conceives or thc text as <1 11 IIll clplay hdween lhe titlc's
" death-knelr' and the typographical COIUIllIIS orthe lex t itllcl 1", columns meant
to suggest a phallic structure or "resurrection.'·Z.1
The dialectical interplay 01' abscnce and presence/sacrifice and con­
sideration/death and resurrection which the Derridea n projcct describes
undermines the very structure of hierarchical opposition in such a way
that, for many, Derridean theory leads in the political arena to neutrality or
even indiFFerence. In an essay on la Ilouvelle phi/osophie which spccitlcall y
places Bernard-Henri Lévy's notorious 1977 attack on EurocommunisJ11.
M a rx, and socialism generaIly (in La Barharie el visage humain) wi thin the
Derridean tradition (Lévy was, in fact , Derrida's student), Michael Ryan has
summarized the logic which transforms Derridean dialectics into political
pesslmlsm:
By problematizing the very structure of opposition, deconstruction
neutralizes the specific oppositions which sustain political practice
-conserva ti \'e/radical , fascistlsocialist, reactionary/revol utionary­
and it thus theoretically , and for all practical purposes, suspends the
possibility of radically opposing any system from a position outside
that system. The outside would mercly be the inside once again . ...
This way of thinking ... produces the facile , existential despair of a
Lévy , the professional prophet of doom . Here, Derrida 's argument
for the return 01' the same in the opposite, becomes grounds for indi­
vidual despair is well as for moralistic political neutrality: if socialism
is merely fascism once again [the lesson of the Gulag, for Lévy] , the
same though diFferent , why bother to struggle? Why take any part?24
In these terms, the materialization of contemporary art--- the textualization
01' the oral poem, the valorization 01' the photographic document, the trans­
formation of concept into cOlTImodity--is inevitable and negative. Art con­
ceived as praxis or action contains within ibelfits inevitable return as a sta tic
and reifled object. Art conceived outside the System will find itselF inside it
once again . The na'ive politics of an Art Workers' Coalition are , of course,
doomed to failure .
But just as Lévy's La Barharie is a reductive reading of Derrida, this is a
reductive readin g of the possibilities o f performance art in the seventies. IL
seems to me beyond q uestion that in denying the authority of the textlobject
and in opening itself to the interpretation of its audience- a gesture calcu­
lated to create a comJ11unity cxperience- -performancc also inevitably in vitcd
its mi sintcrprc ta tion a nd rnis use , including its transfnrma1 iofl into an inslrll ­
lTIent 01" commodi ty satisfadion ano commcrcia l explnil ulion.
T his is nollo ~ay th at lhe cOl1lm odily st at us " I" lll l IN 11 11..' unly e nd In which
pcr l"\Hm alll:c ill lhe scvc nt ics has PUil1h:d , It hui'l IIls.. ¡lil\l os! un il"LlJ"1ll Iy.
100
1111 011 .1 1 (';'!' U l r I 'I IU lI UI\ I i\N ( ~ 1
positcd IÍle idell 01 Ihe es tablis hmen t 01 /'/111 111 11 lIIity as Ihe allernative end 01"
ar\. ""'cd n c Jal1l \!sOI1 has suggcstcd that in recent ycars " the only aulhentic
cullural prnduction" that has avoidcd rcification has ell1anatcd frorn just
such altcrnative cOlTImunities. Yet these comll1unities can only be defined as
"lIlarginal pockcts" of authentic production within society as a whole: " bl ack
litcraturc and blues, British working-class rock , women's literature. gay
literaturc. the ruma n québécois, the Iiterature of the Third W orld; and this
production is possible only lo the degree to which these forms of collective
Iife or collective solidarity have not yet been rully penetra ted by the market
and by the commodity system ."25 Jameson admits that what shatters the
commodity system is collective praxis, but he is unwilling to agree that such
collective praxis is possiblc under industrial capitalism. I would suggest,
however, that art's drive toward community formation throughout the last
decade- -the desire to articulate itse\f From within a community conceived
as subversivc al' antagonistic to the larger syslem in which it finds itself- is
a Illanifestation 01' a desire to counter not merely art's exploitation in the
marketplace but <lIso the authority and privilege with which the marketplace
self-interestedly invests it.
The A rt Workers' Coalition seems to me a clear attempt to articulate
just such a position , and the various feminist communities orga nized in the
seventies are another. But perhaps the most coherent and self-conscious
erfort to escape the cOlllmodity art world is the French T e/ Q ue! group.
which counters with its own sen se 01' group praxis not only lhe larger sys­
lem itself but the negative reading of Derridean deconslruction which /a
l1olll'e/le phi/osophie proposes. A t the heart 01' Te/ Que/'s project is the notion
01' the scripteur, the writer \Vho conceivcs of his work not as a creation but
rather as the product of a " vast and uninterrupted dialogue " with other
texts'"(' Julia Kristeva 's famous word for this concept lS inter-texlualit y
"each text situates itselr at the junction of many texts of which it is at once
Ihe re-reading, the accentuation , the condensation , the displacement and
the profound cxtension " (p. 75). In this way , Tel Que/ "systematically de­
nounces the metaphysical valorization of the concepts of ' the work ' and 'the
author'" (p. 68). and substitutes ror them a t/léorie d 'ensemble, a collective
gathering 01' intcr-texts in which Derrida 's deconstruction oF opposition leads
1101 to political entropy but to continual dialogue and , even , revolutionary
cl1ergy.
Perhaps the most interesting- and problematic- - example of a praxis such
as Te! Qucf's in American art is the work 01' Andy Warhol , for despite
Warhol's repulation ano his "star-quality," he is more a scrifJteur than he is
a creator, co nducling a "vast (lnd un interrupted dia logue " with the texts of
IIlass culturc. Almost fro m thc bta rl Wa rho l has removed himself fro m the
aclual proLl uc liLlII u rhis ¡.Ir!., rcJying ( I n a silk-screen process which all ows him
lo IcuY\.' I\lost ol'thc dcla ils ol" m;¡kinp. p¡li nlill!'S lo his cntourage. ll is Call1phcl/'s
\)/JIII' ('( /11.1' Il()! () !lly suggl.!st tll\.' ~ 11I11I11"dll y sla!us nI" arl bu t also deny
'111
 \'-1!'I i ' \ I ,\ It 1
W<lrhul':; p restigl; as l: rCal o r llH:y 1l'11I . 11 11 .1 ' 1111I ~ h ( ·.lIl1phl'll's as Warlml's_
1\11 01' his books are cO<lu tho rcu. alld 11(\1 . om: V Il ~·'S~·". hccausc he can ' l write_
He has cven gone so I'ar a s to hirc a loo k-alih' lo lakc his place at Pllblic
appearances_ Warhol's " personality" is a kind 01' sludicd lack of personality;
Warhol's performance a calculated nonperforman ce; and his art almost
not art at all. His thorough awareness ol' the eommodity system ' s ability to
lIsurp "revolutionary" images- to make the outside inside, as it were- is
epitomized by his series of MeloS ami his 1976 H ammer and Sick!es. Jn the
first place. Warhol usurped the very image 01' Mao itself, ripping off the
frontispiece to the Red Book. And the M ao exhibit , which was installed in
Te! Quel's home lerritory in 1973 , at the M usée Galliera in Paris. not only
transformed M ao into what David Bourdon has called a "society ieon ," just
another mass-produced Warhol "supcrstar," but into decor, fo r Warhol hung
his silkscreens over a floor-to-ceiling Mao Wal!paper. With the Muo.\' and the
Hal11mer al/d Sickle series, Warhol seems to provide his ruling class patrons
\vith a way to finally deal with their historical nemesis once and for all. As
Peter Schjeldahl puts it: "They can hang it on their walls. "27
Schjeldahl is, of course, forced to admit that "turning rcvolution into an
uppcrcrust consumable would seem automatic grounds for condelllnation
to many critics today." Likewise. Warhol's systematic undcrrnining of "the
metaphysical valorization of the concepts of 'the work ' and 'the author,' "
which he accolllplishes at Ieast as thoroughly as Tel Que!, is called into
question by the kind of practiL:e and L:ommunity Warhol ends up substituting
for "the work" and "the author. " Warhol's community is not some "mar­
ginal pocket" of society interacting outside the commodity system, but the
very heart of the commodity system itself, the super-rich , Studio 54. Con­
corde-seL But this was not always the case. The crowd with which Warhol
first surrounded himself at the Factory on Union Square was a collection
of gays, drag queens, speed freaks, and self-stylcd "superstars" whose one
common denominator was "just that they were outrageous; aesthetic out­
laws. " 2~ As Warhol and his entourage beL:ame more and more "in" through­
out Ihe sixties, however, and as hanging out at the Factory beca me a sort o f
arl-world substitute for social slumming, his outrageolls oulla\\' aesthetics
wcre absorbed by the uppercrust. In fact. Warhol's llnderground \Vorld \Vas
l'onsecrated and comm odified by the social elite- at Studio 54, for instance
wilh the salTle ease lhat his Mao.\' \Vere being assimilated by the markct­
place_ What happened to Mao happened to Andy. Despite his ca lc lllated
ifldilfcrence, he was consecrated, made a star.
Ever the strategist, he lransformed consecratlon itselfinto a subject matter.
Ilis show Afldy War!lOt- Por/mil.\' ol/he 70s, "vhich ran at the Whilncy from
Novcm ber 1979 throllg h Jan uary 1980, is an essay 0 11 cOllsecraliO!1 griu COlll­
IIIlldili cat ion, o n maki ng id o Ls a nd mak ing iJQls pay 011\.: \Vay lo read lhis
sh ow is lO /:ice Warho l as a social pa rU!'i ilC. '-ced ifl!, Iltr 111\: \Vl'al lh a nd I~HIlC 0 1'
IIl hc r-.; by sd ling Ihclfl lheir po rl ra ils rllr lil rty 1\ 1 Id lY1111111': 11 11 1 dollars apicec.
'1 )"'
I 11 I •• 11 I H . r ., Ji t' IJlU i Hit 1\1 ¡\ NI' I i
T!l is i!\ a n: adill)'. Ihal 11\: is lIIore or Icss willillg lu :ICL:Cpt , as he is willing lo
aCI.:CplllH.rc 01 Icss :lnylhing. " 1 have Social Diseuse." he says in his ancL:dotal
l'olkclioll (JI' socicty snapshots shots called /ü po.l'ure.l':
Thc sylllptoms o/' Social Disease: You want to go out every night
because YOll ' re arra id ir you stay home you might miss something.
You choose yOlll' friends according to whether or not they have a
limousine.. _ . Y ou judge a party by how many celebrities there- if
they serve caviar lhey don't have to have celebrities. When you wake
up in the morning, the first thing you do is read the society columns.
If your name is actually mentioned your day is made. 29
ACL:ording to this reading of himself, Warhol is the llltimate fan , sna pping
candids of the rich and famous with his Polaroid or his Minox , and , \Vith a
fervor unmatched in New York since Paul B1aL:kburn 's poetry-reading days,
laping conversations with everyone in sight for his magazine In/erl'ielV. Bul
according to this reading, Warhol is merely the syL:Ophant par excellence of
his day. and everybody, most 01' all Warhol, kn ows he is more than simply
this. He is the exploiter 01' the exploiters , the poor kid from a working-c1ass,
illlllligrant background \Vho turned the tables on Ihe rich. As much as h is
is a kind of art-world Horatio Alger story, it is also the record 01' a cultural
COllp d'état. By appearing to aspire lO the starry heights of Fi fth Aven ue,
hc has brought Fifth Avenue down to th e r-actory. Warhol's Exposures, for
instance, are at onL:e icons and exposés , his SOL:ial Disease a perfect Illetaphor
I'or the ills 01' a decadent and socially diseased society:
This book is about the people at the top, or around the topo But
the top's the bottom . Everyone up therc has SOL:ial Disease.
It 's the bubonic plague of our time , the black and white life and
death.
(p _ 19)
l.ike Derrida, W arhol collapses distinctions between life and death , good
and evil , represented and represen ter, face and mask. His art not only aspires
lo the condition of photography. it is photography- or half photography ,
since his paintings are almost always literally photographs silk-screened onto
canvas. i\nd Warhol addresses the question of the lllateria.Jization of the (lrt
cxpericncc directly. He refuses to mask the question either by valorizi ng the
illllHed iacy 01' the art experience or by aestheticizing arl 's objed. He con­
sistcntly fo rces us to ask ourselvcs jusI what the object of his performance
IlIigllt bc_ A nd he consistcnl ly kcc ps liS wo ndering. Warhol is not the most
coll1l ú rl ablé ligllrc with whom lo S\II11 IIp lhe aesthetics of the seventies .
hlll his w~) r" ..:mhllJ ics cvcry I) IICSlilif\ w hich Ihe tlcC<lue has raised_ He is . in
rael thc \.1I:1;:lOe\ icon , 1 he 1YI1IIlíplinlY 111' hi s gl.!sllIl'es ami thc plmal ily 01'
'1, '.
 1 11 1 11111 1, ( "1 () 1 l' I' It 1 I lit M A N ( '1'

11I 1 ~'lfiH~ l a l l\l ll hi:; ! 'C!illl l l'S IIIV l l c M'I Vl' 111 dtlllh ¡I t( 1l' II ,1I11 wltieh il n:lllaills t\\r 1(1 (i¡';\lrv.¡,; Q l hl ~lllI. I kl hlglls: Ik lWI!CIl 1111.: W nl ll:1I allli Ihe O ral in l\JII lc rnporary
l")l!lt-y." N<'II' I i""'III'.I' lIis/til'y , X (Sprin g 1977 ), 41:\)- SO(,.
lIll lo \;~ pl \llc i n lile cigh lics.
17 See J CrLJllIl: Rlllhclllx:rg, 1'1'1'~ fÍl('('s (~ O/!Wl' J,Vl'i/ings (N e w York: New Direetions,
I()!)I), pp. 10, ~~.
1K Dav id Anlin, " A Correspondem:e with lhe Edilors William V. Spanos and Roben
Notes Kro etseh," BOlll1dal'y 2.:1 (1975). 677.
1') .101111 Ashbery, Sefj~P()I'/l'ai/ in ({ Convf'x ¡j,tirl'o/' (New York: Penguin , 1(76),
Susiln SOl1tag, 0/1 P/¡%gmp/¡y (New Yo rk: Farrar, Straus & Giroux , 197X), pp. (,8 83.
p. 149. SuhsequelJI pagc references are lo this text. 20 (i1'(1/I/lIf(//O!ogy , p. 135.
2 Walter Paler, '/'l/e Rellaissa/1ce (London: Maemillan , 1(10), pp. 2:\5- 36). .! I Anlonin Artaud. Se!d/ed Wl'i/ings, ed. Susan Sontag (New York: Furrar, Straus
1 Murray Krieger, Theory ()/' Crilicism: A Tradi/ioll {Ind lts 5j'ys/el/1 (Baltimore: & Giroux. 1(76). p. 589 ; Derrida, "La Parole souffté, " pp. 175. 191 .
J() hns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1(76), p . 212. ")") Jaeques Derrida, "Edmond Jabes and the Question of the Book ," in H/ri/ing ({I/(I
4 The lerlll i/lmanen/isl is C h,lrles Altie ri's; see his En!arging //¡e Temp!e: Ne\!' f)iffá l'l1ce. p. 70.
/)irccliOl1s in American Poelry During /h e J960s (LeIVisburg, Pa.: Bucknell Univ. 21 Jacques Derrida, La Dissémir/!//ion (Paris: Editions du Seuil , 1(72), p . 336; and
P ress, 1(79). Gla.\ Paris: Ed itions G alilée, 1(74).
:'i II"rold Rosenberg, lJ¡e Anxio/./s Ohiec/: Ar/ Today {1m/l/s Audience (New Y ork : 24 Gavatri Spivak and Miehael Ryan , "Anarehisrn Revisited: A New Philosophy."
Mentor Books, 1(66); Luey Lippard, ''The Dematerialization 01' Art. " Art Inler­ maeri/ i('s, 8 (Sumrner 1(78), 75- 76.
lIa /ional.. 12 (February 1968), rpt. in Changing: Es'\"ays in !Ir! Cri/icis/17 (New Y ork: 25 Fredric .Iameson, "Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture," Socia! Tex/ , 1
!)\ll lon , 1(71), pp. 255-76; and Ba rbara Rose, AlIlerimn Ar/ Sil1C!' J900 (New (Winter 1(79), 140.
York: Praeger, 1(75). 76 "Ecriture et Revolution: Elltrctien de .Iacques Henrie avec Phihppe Sollcrs, " TMorie
" Scc " Situation Esthetics: Impermanent Art and the Seventies Audience," Ar!fárlll11, d'ensemh!e (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1(68), p. 67. Subsequcllt page referenccs are
IX (Jalluary 1(80),22- 29. to this text: the translalions are my 0\V11.
Michael Fried, "Art and Objecthood ," Ar/forwn, 5 (June 19(7), rpt. in Minim({! '27 David Bourdon. "Andy Warhol and the Society Icon." An in A 111 aica, 63
ArI: A Critica! An/ho!ogy, ed. Gregory Battcock (New York: Dutton, 1968), (January- February 1(75),42- 45; and Peter Schjelddhl , "Warhol and C1ass CO I1­
pp. 1·10, 146. tent," Ar/ in Aml'rica , 68 (May 1(80), 118.
:-: hlr a more detailed discussion, see Moira Roth , ''To w¡ud él History of C alifornia :'~ Andy Warhol and Pat Hackett, POPism: The J1farllO! '60s (New York: Harcourt
I'(Tformance," Arls Magazine , 52 (February 1(78), 94 - 103 and (June 1(78), 113­ Bmee and J'ovanovich , 1(80), p. 195.
24. 29 Andy Warhol, IVi,t h Bob Colaeello, Amly 'Warho{'s EX{io.l'ures (New Y ork: Andy
') Lul.'Y Lippard, " The Art Workers' Coalition ," in Idea Arl, ed. Gregory Batteock Wmhol Books, 1(79), p. 19. The idea of reading Warhol's Expo.wres as a docu­
(New York: Dutton , 1(73), pp. 103 , 111'. menl underseoring his status as a Can is Carter Rateliff's; see his "Starlust: All dy's
10 1 shollld perhaps make it clear that l am treating Conceptual and Performance Photos," An in AlIlerica, 68 (May 1(80), 120- 22.
Art as onc. Many have implicitly Iinked them (see Fr,i ed's "Art and Objccthood, "
for instance). bUl RoseLec Goldberg has stated the connection most satisf<lctorily:
"It is difficult to separate where 'conceptual' art ends and performance begins. For
cOllceptual art eontains the premise that the idea may or may not be executed.
SOllletimes it is theoretieal or conceptual, sO Tlletimes it is material and performcd. "
Sce " Spaee and Praxis," SIl/dio Interna/iona! , 190 (SlImmer 1(75), 136.
11 S\.:c Richard Cork, " Whal docs Docurnel1/(¡ Document'I" SIl/dio Internatiolla!,
1')4 (1978). :19.
(..) Lucy Lippard , " The Strlletures, the Structures and the WaJl Drawings, the Strue­
1mes and Lhe Wall Drawings and the Books. " in So! Le Will , ed. Alicia Legg (New
York: M useu Tll of M odern i\.rt, 1(78), p. 27.
I \ Jacq ues Derrida, DI Gran/11a/()/ogy, transo Gayatri Spivak (Baltimore: Johns
Ilopkins Univ. Press , 1(76). Fm another, briefer example of Derrida's decon­
slrllelion 01' speech's priority see "La Parole soufflé," in Writillg (1m! Díjjérf'll ce,
Iralls. Alan Bass (Chicago: Uni\'. ofChicago Press, 1(78), pp. 177·-78.
11\ A Ih.:ll G insberg, A{{el1 Verho/im: LeClures 011 Poelry. Po!ítics. COIlS!'iOll.\·/ICS.I', ed .
(; ordoll Hall (New York: MeGraw-HilL 1(74), p. 2(,. C:ornpme Charles Oboll 's
1'; \1 1\0 Wi dislinction bctw ~ 11 "Ianguagc a s lh e Helor lhe inslan! and languagc as
lIl e ;Ie l ( lr 1hOll g hl a 110 ul lhe iI1SI'111 1." in "1 rum an LJ !\ivcr~c, " ,.. . cf('c/"c! Wri/ ings o(
( 'Imrl,',\ 0 1.\'0// , cd . R oberl C' rccley (New Y p rk . N¡,;\\! l)i l\:~ li,"IS , 1'J(6), p. 54.
1'-;; A ll c lI (i ills hc rg. Millel IIr('(/II,s. PWIII.\' ¡ 1)7 1 1'1'11 I I.{. III 1 "\I\C' i ~t·,) : Ci ty Lighls.
1'>77 ). p , lO. S uhscq llclIl pa ue n~ re n: II CCS ¡liT 1\1 Iltl \ "'\ 1

' 01 ' 11 1
 _ . " · ."... .. r'l · '~--,,..-I "
77
PERFO RM AN C E A NO
practices as varied as dance, music, painting, architecture, and sClllpture,
THEATR I C ALfT Y
The subject dernystified
Josette Féral
Sourcc: Translaled by reTeSe Ly" ns, /vlodem Drama 25( 1) (1 <)~ 2) : 17 1 18 1,
Dcpending on one 's choice of experts, theatre today can be divided into two
different currcnts which 1 shall emphasize here by referring to a remark of
Annette Michelson 's on the performing arts that strikes me as particularly
relevant to my concern:
There are , in the contemporary renewal 01' performancc modes , t\Yo
basic and diverging impulses which shape and animate its major
innovations. The first , grounded in the idealist extensions of a Chris­
tian past, is mythopoeic in its aspiration , ec1ectic in its forms, and
constantly traversed by the dominant and polymorphic style which
constitutes thc most tenacious vestige of tha t past: expressionism. Its
celebrants a re: fo r theater. Artaud. Grotowski , l'or film , Murnau and
Hrakhage. and for the dance, Wigman . Graham. The second . con­
sistently secular in its commitment to objectificati on, proceeds from
Cubism and Constructivism ; its modcs are anal)'tic and its spokes­
men are: for theater, Meyerhold and Brecht, for film , Eisenstein and
Snow , for dance. Cunningham and Rainer. 1
Rather than qucstion this c1assification and the insuffieient consideration it
g iws to men of the theatre like Craig or Appia , and to theatrical practices
<lS va ried as those 01' 1\ . Boal 's guerrilla Iheatre, B read & Puppet's political
Ihl'alrc, and the expe riments 0[' A. Bcnedetto. A. Mno uehki ne, the TN$, the
,"'all F rancisco Mime Troupe, and Mabo u Mi rH!s. r ~ hnlllJ likc lO make my
Il WIl IIse 01' il lo a ccoU lll ror Ih!! phcnonH!nn ll 01' rll.:rl'o mHHlee as it has
appeared in Ihe l Ini tcu Sta les anu F u ro pe O\ll'l I lll: pu sr IWCllly yeal's.
'o(,
" llI III H I\I i\NI ') i\N )I ' 1' 11 ' A l R JI ' i\' I I'\'
Inhunlud l'IllI l Nllllé<l lisl pra cliccs in Ihc Iwenlies, as RoseLec Goldbcrg
has ~ h()wn in lu.!r hllOk, P f>r/ú/'ll/(II/('('," artistic perf'ormance enjoyed quite a
h l) lll1l in the lifLil:s. especially in Ihe wake orlhe experiments ofAlJan Kapro\\'
amI ./llhn C age, Conceived as an art-l'orm at the juncture of other signi fy ing
Ill~rf'ormance seems paradoxically to correspond on all counts to the ne\\'
Ihcatre invoked by Artalld: a theatre 01' cruelty and violence, 01' the body
amI its drives, 01' displacement and " disruption ," 3 a non-nanative and non­
n:prcsentational theatrc, 1 should like to analyse this experience of a ne\\'
genre in hopes of revealing its fundamental characteristics as weIJ as the process
hy \\'hich it works , My ultimate objective is to sho\\' what practices like these,
helonging to the limits of theatre, can tell us about theatricality and its
rclation to the actor and the stage.
Of the many characteristics of performance, 1 shall point to three that, thc
diversity 01' practices and modes notwithstanding, constitute the essential
f'oundations 01' all performance. They are flrst, the manipulation to which
perf'ormam;e subjects the performer's body - a fundamental and indispens­
able elcment of any perJ'orming ac\; second , the manipulation of space , which
Ihe performer empties out and then carves up and inhabits in its tiniest nook s
and crannics: and finally , the relation that performance institutes between the
artist and the spectators, between the spectators and the work of art, and
between the work of art and the artist.
a) Firsl. the l1111nipulaliol1 (~r (he I}(xly. Performance is meant to be a physical
accomplishment , so the pcrform er works with his body the way a painter
does with his can vas. He explores it, manipulates it, paints it, covers it,
uncovers it, freezes it, moves it, cuts it, isolates it, and speaks to it as ifit were
a foreign object. It is a chameleon bod)' , a foreign body where the subject's
desires and repressions surface. This has been the experience of Hermann
Nitsch , Vito Acconci , and Elizabcth Chitty. Performance rejects all illusion,
in particular theatrical illusion originating in the rcpression of the body's
"haser" elements, and attempts instead to call attention to certain aspects of
the boJy - the face, gcstural mimicry, and the voice that would normally
escape notice. To this end, it turns to the various media · telcphoto lenses, still
cameras , movie cameras, video screens. tclevision - which are there like so
many microscopes to magnify the infinitely small and focus the audience's attcn­
tion on the limited physical spaces arbitrarily carved out by the performer's
desirc and transforllled into imaginary spaces, constituting a zonc where
his own emotional Aows and fantasics pass through. These physical spaces
can be parts of the pcrformer's own body magnified to infinity (bits of skin. a
hand , his hcad , etc.). but they can also be certain arbitrarily Iimited. natural
spaccs Ihat the pcrformer cho oses to wr a p t1p and thus reduce to the dimen­
sion s o l'm un ipul a ble o bjecls (t.:r. ('hri sto's expe riments with this technique 4).
T hc boJ y is mallc conspicllollS: a body in picces, fragmcnted and yet one, a
booy r crCt.'iw d a nd renJercJ as ¡I /IIa(( ' (I/dn¡r(' displaccmcl11, and fluctuation,
' 11'1
 VISIi'" !\rt I I\ NII '·I I ' \III "~' ¡\NI.; ' 1\1< '
a body Ihl' perfvJ'lllance L'OIH.:c ives ¡I r " " I~'p l ~'~~" d ¡' lid 1I i.es lo free cvcn al
the cost nI' greater violcnce. C onsider, túr cx alllp lc, 1h(! in lentionall y provllc­
alive scenes where Acconci plays on stagc with his vari o lls bouily prouucts.
Such demonstrations, wh ich are brought to lhe surLlce mo re or lcss violently
by the performer, are presented to the Other' s view, to the view 01' other, in
order lhal lhey ma y undergo a collective veritication. O nce this exploration
of lhe body, and therefore of thc sllbject. has been complcted, anu once
cerlain repressions have been broughl lO light, objeetified, anu represenleu ,
they are frozen under the gaze of the spectalor, who appropriates them as a
for lll 01' knowledge. This leaves the performer free to go on t o new acts and
new performances.
For tbis reaso n, some: performances are unbearable; Ihose of Nitseh, for
exam ple, which do violence not only lO the performer (in bis case, a violence
freely consented to), but also to the spectator who is harassed by images that
both violate b im and do him violence. 5 The spectator has the feeling that he is
taking part in a ritual that combines all possiblc fransgressions - sexual and
physical , real and stageu ; a ritual bringing the performer back to lhe limits of
thc subjcCl conslituted as a whole; a ritual that, starting from the performer's
own "symbolic," attempts to explorc the hidden face of what makes him a
uniticd subjcct: in other words, the I'semiotic" or "chof(f" haun ting him. r, Vet
this is not a return to the divided and silent body of the mother, such as
Kristcva sees in Artalld, but inslead a march ahead towards the dissolution of
the subjecl, not in explosion, scattering, or madness - which are other ways 01'
re Lurning lo the origin - but in death. Performances as a phenomenon worked
through by the death drive: this comparison is not incidental. It is based on
an ex tensive, conscious practice, deliberately consented to: the experience
of a body \Vounded , dismembered , mutilated, and cut up (if only by a movie
camera: e l". Chitty's Demo Jvfode/), a body bel o nging lo a fully accepted
lesionism .'
The body is cut up not in order to negate ir. bul in order to bring it back to
Ji fe in each of its parts which have, each one, become an independent whole.
(T his process is idcntical to Buñuel's in Un ehien andalou, when he has one of
the charaeters play wi th a severed hand on a bllsy road.) Instead of atrophy­
ing, the bouy is therefore enriched by all the part-objects that make it up
ami whose richness the subject learns to discover in lhe eourse of the per­
formance. These parl-objects are privileged, isolated, and magnified by the
performer as he studies their workings and mechanisms , and explores their
under-side, thereby presenting lhe spectators with an experience ;n vi/ro and
in slow motion of what usua 11y takes place on slage.
b) First the maniplll a tion ol' the body, lIJen ¡he manipulo/ion o/ "'pace:
1he re i:; a rlll1~~tional identily between them thal Icads 1he re r rormer to pass
lh ro ugh Ihese places wi thollt cvcr m a kiJlg a dclini ti vc slll p. C a rvi ng out
imaginu ryor rea l spncc:; (¡;I ~ I\ ~o nci\ R,'d /'If/II'.\'). \ \111.' IIHll1wn l in nnc placc
alld lit!! lIexl lI111n a!nt ill Ihe o lhcr, lhe p ¡;rf¡) 11 111 1 IH'''tI ',l'lIles wilhill [hesc
l ())\
" ' i 1(1 III! M ¡\ N ( ", "N ') ' j'" Io!' II! re ' ¡\, "y
sil11l1ltan c() lI sl~ I'llysical a nu imaginary spaccs, bul insleau traverscs , ex­
plo n:s. amI IJH' a~lIrcs thCIll , clTecling displacemenls and minute variations
within them . Hc uoes not occupy lhcm , nor do they limit him: he plays wilh
thc performance space as if it were an object and turns it into a machine
"acting upon thc sCllse organs." x Exactly like the body , therefore. space
becomes existential to the point 01' ceasing to exist as a setting and place. It no
longer sllrrounds and eneJoses the performance, but like the body , beeomes
part ofthe performance to such an exlent that it cannot be distinguished from
il. It is the performance. This phenomenon explains lhe idea that performance
can take place ol1ly within and for a sel spaee to which it is indissolubly tied .
Within this space, which becomes the site of an exploration of the subject,
the performer suddenly seems to be living in slow motion. Time strelches oul
¡¡nd dissolves as " swo11en, repetitive , exasperated" gestures (Luciano ¡nga
Pin) seem to be killing time (el'. the almost lInbearablc slo\V motion of some 01'
Michael Snow's experimenls): gestures that are multiplied and begun again
and again (Id injinÍlum (cf. Acconei 's R ed Tapes), and that are always diffe r­
ent , split in two by the camera recording and transmitting them as they are
being carried out on stage before our eyes (cL Chitty). This is Derrida's différ­
once made perceptible. From then on, there is neither past nor futllre, but
only a continuous present - that oflhe immediacy oft'hings, of an oc/ion wking
place. These gestures appear both as a finished prodllct and in the eourse 01'
being carried out , already completed and in motion (cL the use 01' cameras):
gestures that reveal their deepest workings and that the performer executes
only in order to discover what is hidden underneath them (this process is
comparable to Snow's camera filming its own tripod), And the performance
shows this gesture over and over to the point of saturating time, space, amI
the representalion with it sometimes to the point of nausea. Nothing is len
but a kinesics 01' gesture. Meaning - all meaning ~ has disappeareu.
Performance is the absence of meaning. This stalement can be easily
sllpported by anyone coming out of lhe thealre . (We need think only 01' the
audience's surprise and anger with the first "stagings" of the Living Theatre,
01' with those 01' Robert Wilson or Richard Foreman.) And yet, if any experi­
cncc is meaningful , without a dOllbt it is that of performance. Performance
does not aim at a meaning, but rather makes meaning insofar as it works right
in those extremely blurred junctures out of which the subject eventllally
emcrges. And performance conscripts this subject both as a constituleu sub~
jlTI amI as a social sllbject in order to dislocate and demystify it.
Performa nce is the death of the subject. We just spoke of the death drive
as being inscribed in performance , conscioLIsly staged and brought into play
by a set of fredy intendcd anu accepted repetitions. This death drive, which
fra )! l11enls the hody and makcs il fun d ion likc so many pa rt-o bjects, reap­
r cu rs at lite cll d nI" lhc pcr l"Orlll;IIHX wltcn il is fixcd 011 l he video screen.
Ind ccd, il is nI' inlc l'cl'l 1n II n 1l: Ih 111 ~vcry Iwrforrnance ultimatel y meelS
l il e vid¡,;\) scn:c 11, W\¡¡':I'C lite ~kI1l Y" l tll4' d '; lIhjl'l"l is frozcn and lIies. T hcre,
'11')
 I S l' ¡\, 1\ 11 I A N I j " l llt I'f/l11\1¡\ N ( ' ,. i\ R I
perlúrrmlJ ll:C (1111':0 a g a i ll em;ollll te ls n 'p rcsClIlll lII II I. 110111 which il wan tcul o
escape al all cos ls anu which lIlarks bol h ils fultilr lll'lIl alld il:; elld.
c) In point Oft~lct , the artisl's relati on to his own perfo rmance is no longer
one of an actor to his role, even if that role is his actua l one, as the Living
Theatre wanted it to be. When he refuses to be a protagonist, the performcr
no more plays himself than he represents himself. I nstead, he is a source of
production and displacement. Having become the point of passagc fo r energy
110ws gestural, vocal, libidinal, etc. - that traverse him without ever stand­
ing still in a {lxed meaning or representation. he plays at putting those flows
to work and seizing networks. The gestures tl1at he carries out lead to nothing
if not to the flow of the desire that sets them in motion. T his respo nse proves
once again that a performa nce means nothing and aims for no single, specific
meaning, but attem pts instead to reveal places of passage, or, as Foreman
would say, "rhythm s" (the t rajectory of gesture. of the body, of the eamera,
ofview, etc.). In so doing, it attempts to wake the body - the performer's and
the speetator's- from the threatening anaesthesia haunting it.
It seems to me that all of us here are working on material, rearrang­
ing it so that the resultant performance more accurately reflects not
a perception of the world - but the rhythms of an ideal world of
activity, remade, the better in which to do the kind of pereeption we
eaeh would like to be doing.
We are, lhen, presenting the audience with objects of a strange sort,
that can only be savored ifthe audience is prepared to establish ne\\'
perceptual habits - habits quite in conflict with the ones they have
been taught to apply at classical performance in order to be re~
warded with expeeted gratifieations. In classical performance, the
audience learns that if they allow attention to be led by a kind of
childish, regressive desire-for-sweets. the artist will ha ve strategically
placed those sweets at just the "crucial" points in the piece where
attention threatens to c1imax. 9
This technique accounts for the "sc\eetive inattention" that Richard Schechner
speaks ofin Essuys 0/1 Perjórl11u/1ce. 10 No more than the spectator, though, is
the performer implicated in the performance. He always keeps his viewi ng
rights. He is the eye, a substitute ror the carnera that is filming, freezi ng, o r
slowing down, and he causes slides, superpositions, and enlargements with a
space and on a body that have beco me the tools of his own exploration.
In our work , however. wha t's presented is n ot whal' s "appealing"
(th e min ute som clhing is a ppealin g it's él refe rence lu the past and lo
inhcrit cd "ta::;te") b ul ralher what h<l s hen:lolOl c uo l heclI orga n­
ized by lhe mi no inlo I"Ixogniza blc .Uc :; l n l l '\ ~ ,'V\"I yllrílll! Ihal has
10
l ' Ji ItI ¡ ( 1ft M ;\ N ('le ¡\ N " I 11 I ¡\ I IU l • 1\ I n y
hL' rel\)J'llIC "c~ caped Ilolice." And the ternptation cach of us fights, I
I hink. is lo becol1le prematurely "intcrested" in what we uncover. 11
This situation is all the more difficult ror the spectator since performance,
caught up as it is in an unending series of often very minor transformations,
escapes formalismo Having no set form, every performance constitutes its
IIwn genrc, and every artist brings to it, according to hi s background and
dcsires, subtly different shadings that are hís alone: T risha Brown 's per­
t"ormances lean towards the dance, Meredith M onk 's towards music Some,
however, tend in spite of themsclves towards theatre: Acconci's Red Tapes,
f"or example, or Michael Smith 's Dow/1 i/1 lhe Rec Room. AH 01' this goes to
show that it is hard to talk about performance. This difficulty can be seen also
in Ihe various kinds of research on the subjeet. often in the forms of photo
alhums recording the fixed traces ofperformances that are forever over, with
I he few critical studies 01' tibe subject tending towards historicism or descrip­
lion. Here we touch upon a problem identical to one presented by the thcatre
IIf non-represcntation: how can we talk about the subject without betraying
il? 110\V can we explain it? From descriptions of stagings taking place else­
where or existing no longer. to the fragmente\l'y, critical discourse of scholars,
I he theatrical experience is bound al\Vays to escape any attempt to give an
accurate account of it. Faced with this problem. which is fundamental to a1l
spectacles, performance has given Üselfits own memory. With the help oft he
video camera with which every performance ends , it has provided itself with
a past.
* * "k
Ir one judges from everything that has thus far been said about performance,
il certainly seems difficult to ascertain the relationship between theatre and
performance. And if \Ve turn to the statements of certain performers, that
n:lationship would even seem to be, of necessity , one of exclusion. Michac\
l :ried \vrites to that effect: "theatre and theatricality are at war today, not
sil11ply with modernist painting (or modernist painting and sculpture). but
with art as such - and to the extent that different arts can be described as
IlIodernist. with modernist sensibility as such."'2 F ried sets forth his argu­
IIlcn! in two parts:
1) '¡hc Sl/ceC,I's. CI'C/1 lhe surl'il'u/. 01' ¡he arls has come i/1creasi/1g/y lo dcpend
U/1 lh('ir (/hifily lo de/CUI lhealre.
') /l rr c!('g('I/NurC.l (/.1' ir (/jljl rl!(.J{' h(·,I' rhe ("()l1ditiol7 ol'rhcalrc."
II (\\v ¡" s lll"h:, sla lc.: ll1cn l lo he ....:\plllim·d lel :¡jOllc j usti ried? If wc agrce wit h
1lI-llld:¡ Ihal Ih ca ln,':l,;illI lI lIl c'{r: tp ~' I"\ tll ' ~'r I Csc n l:rli \ln wh ich ~úic Il a lcs and
1 II
 VIS II /\I . \ I( I ANL. l'I!H! rllltM,\N I.' 1 ¡\I( ..
1IlH.ll' rJlIilll:S il, ami if we a lso ill:! llT I ha 1 1" l'Ull l' ~'tlIIIIOI ~'''ca pc lIarrativity (all
the current theatrical cxpc ricllccs rm vc as IlIlH.: h , I:X(,:C pl pcrhaps ror those 01'
Wilson and Fo reman, which alrcady bclong to performance), thcn it \Vould
seem obvious that theatrc and art are incQmpatible. "In the thcatre, every
form once boro is mortal ... ," Peter Brook writes in The Empty Space. 14 But
as I havejust stated , performance is not a formalism. It rejects form, which is
immobility, and opts, instead, fol' discontinuity and slippagc. Jt seeks what
Kaprow was already calling for in happenings thirty years ago: "The dividing
line between art and lite should remain as fluid and indistinct as possible and
time and space should remain variable and discontinuollS so that, by continu­
ing to be open phenomena capable ofgiving way to change and the unexpected,
performances take placc only once.'·' .I Are \Ve very far from what Artaud
advocateo for the theatre , or from what the Living Theatre ano Groto\Vski ,
following Artauo , have demanoeo as the mooel for theatre 's rellewal: Ihe
stage as a " li ving" place ano the playas a "one time only" experience?
That performance shoulo reject its oepe.noence on thea tre is certainly a sign
that it is not only possible, but without a oOllbt also legiümate, to compare
theatre ano performance, since no one ever insists upon his oistance from
something unless he is afraio 01' resembling it. I shall not attempt, therefore,
to point out the similarities between theatre and performance, but rather
show how the two mooes camplement each other ano stress what theatre can
learo from performance. Inoeeo , in its very strippeo-oown workings , its
exploration of the booy. ano its joining 01' time ano space, performance gives
us a kind of theatricality in slow motion: the kino \Ve find at work in tooay's
theatre. Performance explores the unoer-sioe of that theatre, giving the audi­
ence a glimpse of its insioe, its reverse sioe, its hiooen face.
Like performance, theatre oeals with the imaginary (in the Lacanian sense
of the term). [n other woros , it makes use 01' a technique 01' constructing
space, allowing subjects to settle there: first the canstruction of physical space,
ano then of psychological space. A strange paralle1, mooel1ing the shape of
stage space on the subject's space ano vice versa , can be traceo bet ween them .
Th US , whenever an actor is expecteo to ingest the parts he plays so as to
bccome one \Vith them (here \Ve might think ofnineteenth-century theatre, of
natllralist theatre, ano of Sarah Bernharot's first parts) , the stage asserts its
nneness ano its tota1ity . It is, ano it is Ol1e, ano the actor, as él unitary subjcct,
hclongs to its wholeness.
Closer to us, in experiences of present-day theatre (experimental theatre.
alkrnativc theatre here \Ve might think 01' the Living Theatre 's first ex­
perirnents, or, more recently, 01' Bob Wilson's), the \Vay theatrical space is
cnnstructed attcmpts to ma ke ta ngibl e a mI appa rent the \Vh o lc play 01' the
imagin a ry as it seLs subjects (and nOl CI slIbjcCl) (lB Slilgc. T hc proCCsscs
whc rc hy Ihe Ih ca tril:a l r hcn olllcnon is w ns lrllCl c\ 1 as \Vc ll ;IS lhe f'olln J a li on
Ill'l h¡1I ph Cl1 mnCIlO II a n I.!xtcnsivc play (1 rd oU hllOf IlId pc,,'rf1l lllal ion lha t is
I1h U\,.' 01 Icss .,hv iolls <1m.! llJ \l rl: 0 1' Icss dllk ll'II f1 i1l n l dl' Pl'lldil l!' II p O Il IIIc!
212
' 1I
l' U < I I I I( M ¡\ N ( : t !\ N , , I 11 1, ¡\ I IU ( , ¡\ 1.1 I Y
specilic d irt:cll1l a mi aillls lhlls beco me ap parent : the oivision bctwcen actor
amI characlcr (a slIhjcct that Pirandello dealt with very well) ; the oOllbling 01'
the actor (insofar as he survives arter lhe oeath of the text) ano the character;
the ooubling of the author ano the oirector (cf. Ariane Mnouchkine); amI
lastly, the ooubling of the oirector ano thc actor (cL Schcchncr in e/o/hes).
As a group, these permlltations forl11 oifferent projcction spaces, reprcsenting
different positions of oesire by sctting oown subjects in process.
Subjects in process: the sllbject constructeo on stagc projects himself into
objects (charactcrs in cla ssical thcatre , part-objects in performance) \vhich he
can invent , multiply , ano eliminate if neco be . Ano these constructeo objects,
proollcts of his ima.gination ano 01' its oifferent positions of oesire, constitute
so many "a"-objeets for him to usc or abuse accoroing to the neeos of his
inner economy (as with the use of movie cameras or vioeo screens in ma ny
performances). In the theatre , these "a"-o bjccts are fro zen for the ouration of
the pl ay, In performance, on the other hano , they move about ano reveal an
imaginary that has not been a1ienateo in a fi g ure 01' fixation like characters in
the classical theatre, or in any other fixeo theatrical formo rol' it is inoeeo a
q uestion of the " subject," ano not of characters. in today's theatre (Foreman ,
Wilson) and in performance . 01' course, the conventional basis of the actor's
"art," inspireo by Stanislavski , requires the actor to live his character from
within ano canceal the ouplicity that inhabits him while he is on stage. Brecht
rose up against this i11usion when he calleo for a oistancing of the actor from
his part ano a oistancing of the spectator from the stage. When he is faceo
\Vith this prob[em , the performer's response is original, since it seems to
resol ve the oilemma by completely renouncin g character ano putting the
artist himse1f on stage . The artist takes the position 01' a oesiring - a perform­
ing - subject , but is nonetheless an anonymous subject playing the part of
himsclf on sta ge. From then on, since it tells of nothing ano imitates no one,
pcrformance escapes all illusion ano represe nta tion. With neither past nor
fllture , performance /ak e.l' place. It turos th e stage into an event from which
the subject will emerge transformeo until a nother performance, whcn it can
continuc on its \Va y. As lon g as performance rej ects narrativity ano repre­
scntation in th is way, it also rejects the symbolic organization oominating
theatrc ano exposes the conoition s of theatricality as they are. Theatrica1ity
is maoe of this enoless play ano 01' these continuolls oisplacements of the
position of desire , in other words, 01' the position 01' the subject in process
within an imaginary eonstructive space.
[t is prccisely when it comes to the position ofthe subject, that performance
;lI1d thcatrc \Vollld seem to be mutllally exclusive ano that thcatre \Voulo per­
h l;lp~ havc sOl1lcthing to learn fro m performance. Inoeeo , theatre cannot do
wilho ll llhc su b jcct (a co mpktdy tlss urm:d subject) , ano the exercises lo which
Mcycrhrlld '.Ind , la ter on , <.irotowsk i slIbjcctcd thcir stuoents cOlllo only
(.'o ll solidu lc 1he pllsil io n ()I' 1111' IIl1i llll V sllhjl.'cl 0 11 sla ge . Performance, how­
L've r, all hll Llph bc~j lllli llg will! 11 11l'11 l'l' IIV ; 1~;t; lIl l1l'O su bjcCl, bri ngs clllu tional
 V I S I í ¡\ 1 ¡\ It I "N 1I l' 11 It l' ti H M1\
Il ows a nd ~y lllholil' ohjl.'ds illl!' a lk sl¡dlll l/l: d ,p llI ' IIlc hody , sp:i\X inl0 <In
infrasymbolic lOnc . Thesc obj¡;cl:s a r¡; o nl y il ll.: id cl1 la ll y cOllvcycJ by a sl/hj('CI
(herc, thc pcrl'ormcr), anJ that subjccL Icnds hilllsdf ollly vcry superlicia lly
ami partiaH y to his own performance. Brokon d o wn into sCl1liotic bundlcs
and drivcs, he is a purc catalyst. He is what p ermils the appearance 01' whal
shou/d appear. Indeed, he makes tran sition , movement, a nd d isplaccment
possiblc.
Performance, therefore, appears as a primary process lacking tc1eology
and unaccompanied by any secondary process , since performance has noth­
ing to represent for anyone. As a result, performance indicates the theatre \
nwrgin (Schechner wo uld say its "seal1l"), theatre's fringes, something which
is never said, but which, although hidden , is necessarily prcsent. Perform­
ance demystifies the subject on stage: the subject's being is simultaneously
exp/oded into part-objects and cundel1.1'ed in each 01' those objects, which have
themselves become independent entities, each being simultaneously a mar­
gin and a centre. Margin does not refer here to that which is excluded. On
the contrary, it is used in the Derridian sense of the term to mean the trame,
and consequently, what in the subje¡;t is most important, most hidden , most
reprcssed , yet most active as well (Derrida would say the "Parergon "1 6).
In other words, it refers to the subject's entirc store of non-theatrieality.
Performances can be seen , thcrefore, as a storehouse for the accessories of
the symbolic, a depository of signifiers which are all outside of established
discourse and behind the scenes 01' theatricality. The theatre cannot callupon
them as such, but, by il1lplication , it is upon these accessories that theatre is
built.
In contrast to performance, theatre cannot keep from setting up, stating,
constructing, ami giving points of view: the director's point 01' view, the
author's towards the action, the actor's towards the stage, the spectator's
towards the actor. There is a multiplicity 01' viewpoints and gazes, a "densi ty
of signs" (to quote Barthes l7) setting up a thetic multiplicity absent from
performance.
Theatricality can therefore be seen as composed 01' t\Vo different parts: o ue
highlights performance ami is made up of the rea/ilies ollhe il11aginary; and
the other highlights the theatrical and is made up 01' speciJic .Iyrnho/ic slru c­
lUres. The former origina tes within the subject and allows his flows of desire
to speak; the latter inscribes the subject in thelaw ami in theatrical codes,
which is to say , in lhe symbolic. Theatricality arises from lhe play between
these two realities . From then on it is necessarily a theatricality tied to a
desiring subject, a fact which no doubt accounts for our difficulty in dcfin ing
i1. Theatrica lity cannot he, it must befór someone_ In other words, it is fór
lhe Olher.
Th c Ill llltiplicily nI' silllultaneous struc lu reli lha( CHn ne secn al work in
pe rformance scems, in facl, 10 cons lilu ll! ¡In ¡¡ ut 11 n rles!'> , aC l!)J'!cSli, and
d irl!c lorll:ss illli'o !I! ('(// U ('(/!ill '. Ind cl!d , pcrfnfm;lllt,;\· '1\'\: 11 '" lit be ultcm pti ñi! lo
Id
1'( , ln IIlt M A N ( , I J\ N I I 1" I f\ I I( (1' ,\1 I .. \'
Il'vca l ¡¡lid tu sl : I)' ~ sOllll'lhin g tha l l(J\)k pl: l\':c hdúrl' the rcprescntation orthe
slIhjcl'l (l~ W II ir il L10es so by lIs ing;lll aln:ady CIlnslilllted su~iect) , in the salTle
wa y thal il is intcrcsted more in (In actoion as it is being produced than in a
lin ishcd product. Now, what takes place on stage comprises f1ows, accumula­
tiollS , anJ conneetions ofsignifiers that ha ve been organized neither in acode
(hl~ncc the multiplicity 01' media ami signifying languages that performance
IIlakes use 01': bils 01' representation ami narration and bits of meaning), nor
in strllctures permitting signification. Performance can therefore be seen as a
nlachinc working with serial signifiers: pieces of bodies (d. the dismcmber­
lIlent and Icsionism we have already discLlssed), as \Vell as pieces 01' meaning,
rcpresentation , and libidinal f1O\vs , bits of objects joined together in m uJtipolar
l'IlIlcatenations (cf. Acconci 's Red Tapes and the fragmentary spaces he moves
ahout in: bits ofa building, bits ofrooms , bits ofwalls, etc.). i\nd all ofthis is
without narrativity .
The absence 01' narrativity (continuoLls narrativity, that is) is one of lhe
dominant characteristics 01' performance. 11' the performer should unwittingly
1'.ive in to the temptation of narrativity, he does so never continuously or
l'onsistently, but rather ironically with a certain rcmove , as if he were quot­
ing, or in order to reveal its inner workings . This absence lcads to a certain
rrustration on the part 01' the spectator, when he is confronted with perform­
ance which takes him away from the experience oftheatrieality. F or there is
lIothing to say about performance, nothing to tell yourself. nothing to gr<lsp,
projcct, introject, except for fto ws, networks, and systems. Everything a ppca rs
anJ disappears like a galaxy of "transitional objects"l~ representing o nly the
failures 01' representation . To experience performance, one must simultane­
lIusly be there and take part in it , while ¡;ontinuing to be an outsider. Perform­
:mce not only speaks to the mind , but also spcaks to the sen ses (cf. Angcla
Ricci Lucchi 's and Gianikian 's experiments with smell), ami it speaks from
subject to subject. It attempts not to teH (like theatre), but rather to provokc
synaesthetic relationships between subjects. In this, it is similar to Wilson 's
nI(' L/le and Times o/ JO.l'eph Stalin as described by Schechner in Essay s on
l'crjúrnwl1ce. 19
Performance can therefore be seen as an art-form whose primary aim is to
lindo "competencies" (which are primarily theatrical). Performance readjusts
I hcse competcncies and redistributes them in a desystemati7.ed arrange­
menL We cannot avoid speaking of "deconstruction" here. We are not , how­
('vcr, dealing with a "Iinguistico-theoretical" gesture, but rather with a real
gesturc, a kind of deterritorialized gesturality. As such, performance poses a
challenge lo the theatre and to any refiection that theatre might make upon
ilsdr. Performance rorients such rcllcctions by forcing them to open up and
by compc lling lhelll lO expl o re Ihe Illargins 01' theatre. For this reason, an
I,lxc llrsioll inll) performance has sccnll:d 11\)1 onl y interesting, but essential to
,,"r IIltill lHh.' Cl)lh.;crn , which is lO ¡Jllllll! h¡¡¡;k 1\l lhe Lhl:atre arter él long det o ur
hc hilld the SCCI1 CS uf lhca l1 i ~: di l y
'l·
 \ . I t, 11 t\ 1( I t\ N 1) l' 1: JI I H li 1\ 1 1\ ~ 1.- 1: /1 I( I I' P I( I ' ! lItl\l l\N f ' ¡ i\N I ' I I I I!.' I llI C· i\I . ' 1 )

N I,h" Wt; 111 11111 IIlIlv dmill !! 111,' hi~ 1~ 1IIIIIIIIl' IlIll' I I I II~~ I(lIIS hU I :liso durillg
n1:1 uy 01 Ilt l' ~I c ls nI' Wilsll ll ' s St:VCII-iI(:I IIp,:ra , 1'I1l: opera uc¡;rru l at 7 pm
A lIlI ll tll.: Mi chdsOll , " Yvollnc I{:lim:r. 1'01 1 (l IH' 1111' 1);lIIl'llr :111(1 Ih u 1):lIIl'C," alld 1':1 11 m uru l!tan 12 hOllrs . . .. '1 11<.: bchilvior in the I.e Perq spacc was
Ir(jimllll , 12 (Janua ry 1(>74),57 . lIot Ihc same throughout Ihe lIi gh1. I)uring the lirst three <Lets the space
2 RoseLee GolJbcrg, Pcr/im1/ancc: Lil'c Art, IVOY lo 1/1(' Prc.\"('/Il (N(~ w Yo rk , Il)7(». was generally cm p ty exeüpt for inte rmi ssio n , But increasi ng ly as the
3 Lueiano Inga- Pill ~ ay s this in his prefacc to the pho to album on pc rforl11i:1l1cu. night went Oll pco plc cam e to the space anu stayed th e re speak ing to
Per/ímnan(:e.l', J-Japfienings, AC/ion.\', Erenl.\', Aclil'ilies. Jllslallaliolls (Padua, 1970). fricnds, taking a break {'rom the performance , to loop o ut o fth e ope ra ,
4 By wrapping up diffs and entire buddings in their natural sunroundings, Christo later to re-cnter. About halfthe audience left th e IIAM before th e perform­
isolates them. He thus sirnultaneously ernphasizes their gigantie sÍ2e and negates it ance was ove..; but those who remained , like repea ted siftings of flour ,
by his ve ry project, and estra nges his objects from the natural setting frol11 which were finer and fin er cxamples of Wi1son fans: the a lldienee sorted itself
he takes them (cf. Photo 11 0 . 48 in the illustrations to Inga-Pin). out until those of liS who sta yed for th e wholc ope ra sha red not only the
5 The performances ofthe Austrian artist Hermann Nitsch were inspired by aneient expericl1ce 01' Wilson ' s work but the expcrience of expe ri encing iL
Diollysiac ami C hrist ia n rites adapted to a modern eontext designed to illustrate in
él praetical fi:lshion thc Aristotelian notion of eatharsis through fear, terror, 01'
cornpassion. Ilis Orgies. Mys leries, Thealre were performed on nurnerous occa­
sions in the scventies. A typieal performance lé1sted several hours. 1t began with
loud rnusie followed by Nitseh ordering the cerelllonies to begin. A lé1mb with its
throat slit was brought into the midst ofthe participants. Its earcass was crueified ,
and its intestines removed an d po ured (with their blood) over a naked rnan or
woman lying beneath the animal. This praetice originated in Nitseh ' s belief th a t
humanity 's aggressive instincts had been repressed by the media. Even ritual
animal saerifiees , which were so eommon alllong primitive pcoples, have tot a lly
disappeared frolll modern experience. Nitsch's ritual acts thus represented a way
of giving full rein to the repressed ene rgy in mano At the same time, they func­
tioned as aets of purification and redemption through suffering. (Thís description
is based on Ihe diseussi on found in Goldberg, p. 106.)
6 These notions are borrowed fr om Juli a Kristeva, La R évol/ltion da !angage p oétique
(Paris, 1974).
7 " Lesionism " refers to a practiee whereby the bod y is represented no! as an entity
or a unitcd wh ole, but as d iv idcd into P,HtS o r fragments (cL Inga-Pin , p. 5).
8 lnga-Pin , p. 2.
9 Stephcn Koeh , Rich a rd Foreman , et al. , " Pelformance. A Conversation ," Arlfárum,
,1 \ (Deeember 1972), 53 - 54.
10 Richard Schechner, El-says on Perjórr/'la/'lce Theo ry. 1970 /976 (New York, 1977),
p.147.
11 Koch ,54.
12 Michael Fried , " Art and Objecthood ," Arlfárwn (Junc 1(67), rpt. in Minima! Arl.
ed. Gregory Battcock (New York , 1(68), p. 139.
13 Ibid. , pp. 139 141.
14 Peter Brook , Tll e Emply ,'>'p({ce (Ncw York , 1(69), p. 16.
15 Allan Ka p row , A.\'semhlage. Enl'iro/lmenlS a/'le! Happenings (New Yo rk, 1(66),
p. 190, quoted in Pnjrmnallce hy Arr¿\'IS , ed. A. A . Bronso n and Peggy Galc
(Toronto, 1(79), p. 193.
16 See Jaeques Derrida, La Vérilé 1'11 peil1lure (Paris, 1978).
17 Ro land Barthes, "Baudelai,re 's Theater," in Critical Essays, transo Richard Iloward
(Evanston , 1972), p. 26.
18 See Donald W. Winnieott. P!ayil1g (//1(1 R ('a lily (New York, 1971).
19 Schechner develops the idea 01' "selective inattenti on" in his discu ssio n 01' Wilson ' s
Tlle Lije a{u! Times of.fosepll Sla!in (Schechner. pp. 147 - 148):

For (he DeccmbeL 1973, performances ... al I h ~ Broo kly n Academ y 01'
M lIsie's " pe rll ho use . the Le Pe rq space ¡¡ f'\) \l lll 111' ahnlll 150 leel hy 80
¡-ceI W;IS ~ e t up wilh la blcs, c ha irs, n: rré~ IIIIH'lI t ~ a " lílw wller.: pcoplc

11 (, 1I "


8 I"IHlnancc Arl, as wcll as the distinctive character of contemporary inter­
BRITISH LIVE A RT
Nick Kaye
!'ic1 1I1'(:e: ' Li v.: ¡\rl: Dcfinitioll & Dm:umcntatinn '. Conteml'orary Th eatre Re viell' 2(2) (1994) : 1 7.
Ilisl orically, the term Performance Art has referred not only to certain
;IIIISI's pn:sentation 01' innovative pcrformances to audiences in galleries or
IllL'alrc spaces, but to a wide range 01' inherently interdisciplinary practices
whidl have expanded the notion of art into performance and challenged the
i¡ka 01' a pcrfOlmance as something 'done by' a performer 'for' an audience,
I'LTf'ormance Art may be 'done by ' a spectator, it may be 'done' with lhe artist,
nI' ill the absence of the artist in accordance with an agreement. Performan ce
t\rl Illay or may not indude Body Art, which may or may not mani fest
illiclr through an artist's presentation of his or her own body. Performance
Arl relates strongly to Concept Art, in which a 'performer' may present the
doelllllentation of a ' performed' act which was unseen by an audience. Per­
rormance Art may even refer to a re-conceiving of the object as if it were a
scme, or the work of art as an 'event'o In these ways, Performance Art
practiccs have effectcd a blurring ofprecisely the kind ofdiscrete category ils
II Sl' a..~ a gefleric term would imply.
III Ihc U K, which has had its own history of Performance Art since the late
(,Os. Ihc dcveloping crossover of 'art', 'performance art ' and 'theatre' prac­
li ~~s siJl~c lhe early 80s has given rise to increasingly explicit concerns for th e
'illll:gration ', 'intersection' or 'hybridisation ' of arts practices in 'time-based',
' Iive' work. Giving emphasis to performance over a critique of the object in
arl. Ihis work has come to be known as Live Art, a term given eurrency, like
I\;rrormancc Art itself, by its use rathcr than any final sense lhat its meaning
h;ls hCl~n lixed. Yet in referring to both art and performance, lhe term 'Live
Al\' Iwt only indicates its debt to 'perfol1llance art' , but signals its own
Iihcrating conrusion of conventional category and definition. Yel despite lhc
1'.lowing inlcrc~t in interdisciplinary performancc, Live Art rem ains a rcl­
ali vd y lJOd()cu m~ nlcd and certain ly undertheori:ic4..1 area 01' contclll pom ry
IlJ aclil'c ill Brilain. In rl'cognising this. IIa rwoüú Acadcmic Pross will s)lOrtly
Pil hli:sll I3ri lish !,i l'/' 11'1: h.l',I"{/.I'.I" {fI1I1 f)(}( 'WIII 'lI lo (¡IIIIS. t'd il cd hy Nick Kayc. as
11<
Jl IU I' SII I I VI ¡\ H I
Vlllllllle 2, P:JlI 101' Ilarw()od's .Í¡Hlrnal ('OIlI I!/II{!OfllI'V /11('(/II'e Revin\!. The
lúll(}\"ing cssay, which explores the rclationship between Live Art and Per­
disciplinary practices, is drawn frolll the introductory essay to the volume.
Ikf'c lre anything cisc, the tcrm Live Art marks out a space 1'01' experimentation,
a nallle given. as in the biannual Natiol1al Review (I/ Live ArI, to a forum in
which practices derived from a diverse set at of disciplines meet in perform­
:IIlCC. Yet, as the N aliol1al Revieu: ilsclf tcstifles, that Live Art is linked to
performance does not mean that it offers ilself up straightforwardly as eL
)',cnre 01' 'theatre' or 'drama'. Live Art, in this sen se, is as much an attitudc
as it might be a performance practice, a term that invokes a particular way of
Inoking al \York , a frame through which presentations generated in relation
h) sculpture, installation , dance, music or 'theatre' present themselves as
lime-based 'Ii"e' activities implicitly sharing some vocabulary, interest or
acsthetic.
Such circumspection over a drawing out 01' the formal characteristics and
boundaries of Live Art is hardly unfamiliar. As distinct frol11 'the live arts',
Live Art is invariably identified with interdisciplinarity and a challenge to the
rccognisablc limits and distinctions between media, whelher these are theatre,
dance, installation , sculpture or musical composition. For this reason , the
definition of what Live Art is as a practice. as dislinct from recognising it
whcn you see it, is frequently taken , even by those who think ofthcl11selves as
praeticing, teaching or writing in the area, as a critically uncertain, conlen­
tious, evcn an unhclpful exercise, Indeed, this very slippcriness, the resistance
111' Live Art to being pinned down by explanation or prescription, might itself
be attractive, smacking as it does 01' the 'contemporary', the 'experimenta\'.
nI' something in the process of being formed , 01' something yet to be absorbed
into an agreed set of terms or practices.
lt is important lo aeknow1edge that these aspects of Live Art are not
unprecedcnted , nor do lhey stand in opposition to the question of dennition .
Indeed. the very difficulty of pinning down Live Art form and vocabulary
speaks of the character of this field and. where the Live Art work takes this
c\lasiveness onto ilself. 01' the nature and effeet of Live Art praeticc.
In thcse respects, Live Art has rnuch in common Pe.rformance Art. Associ­
atcd with a diverse set of practices deriving, certainly in North America ami
wntincntal Europe, from artists breaking of the stabililies and Iimits of the
(lhice! within fine art, Performance Art might be understood as at once a
precursor 01' Live Art and a part 01' contemporary Live Art practice. Emer­
)'.ing. in the carly 60s and , again. in the early 70s, through a re-conceiving 01'
lhl~ objeet in sculptu re. a reaching beyond the physieal frame 01' the work in
painling. lhrou gh new composil ional proccu ures in Illusic and developments
ill dance. su¡;h ' pcrf'onmlll¡;C' has . ill rclll tion lO Nor lh American work
parl ic ub l'y. bCl:n IhUMi'ZcU :lY.ili IlSIII H: II.'IIllS :Ind inl cgritics cJ rlhc work in art
1¡¡ lhl:r Ihall in rc lllli on III ' Ihl:illl~" (11 -" I,\l IIU'}
, 111
 ~ - ,¡;Y , , '~I 1\
" I( I
111 lile l/ K. lhe hisl\lry 01' I'C Jl \llltl; III~'l '\11 .11101 p~l tl1rln ll n CC l:Iilicism is a
wl'y dilferenl o ne. Emel'ging :su me lell y¡,;a ls .dl e l 11r- cnllll lc rpa rl ill Ihe IJS
and continenlal Europe. Uritish Pe rformance Árt. o fl hl' l.. tc 60s a ntl ca dy 70s
was not ool y shadowed by lhe strength 01' the polil ically radical and largely
text-bascd allernative British thea tre, but shared some of its practices and
concerns. Developing, largely, through work in art or music shools, ami
shadowed by the well-established American a vant-ga rde Z, companies such as
The People Show, IOU Theatre and Forkbea rd F antas)' d rew o n lhe popu la r
J
entertainments through which many radical political theatres were attempt­
ing to define a new working e1ass thea tre. 4 Quite distinct from the fo rm a li sl
strategies ofthe North American Thea tre of Images o r Bod y A rt emerging at
the same time, these highly visual theatres were characterised by an intuiti ve
rather than systematic play between image, text ami narrati ve, by inventi ve­
ness and a marked comic eccentricity. P laying visual imagery and poetic
and comic text across each other, the People Show, thro ugh Mark Long,
developed a style ofperformance, a f1exibilit y o fform and a relationship with
thc audience reminiscent ofthe music hall. ro u Theatre's site-specific fantasies
made idiosyncratic use of a rieh folk imagery and style, while Forkbeard
hllllasy's comic sagas drew skilfully on clown and e1owning. Such means
I'('ma ill cvident in contemporary performance. Performances by Rose English
c\llllhi nt: monologue, references lo myth and a sclf-conscious theatricality
wilh will y a nd self-depracating exchanges with the audience. More recently
c:; la blis hed groups, such as The Glee Club, whose name refers 10 the com­
1111111al singing which preceeded music hall itself, combine a tongue in cheek
Ih l::t trica li ly with a skilfull play through surreal and comic narratíve.
r~wll where British performance practices echoed those of their North
Alllcrican and Ellropean counterparts, a marked difference in sensibility
SéC llll:d \!vident. Performances by Ting: Thcatre of Mistakes 5 c1early parallel
Nt)rlh A merican 'systems' art amI, in performance, the Structuralist Theatre(,
7
;1111 1 aspccts of postmodern dance which emerged in response to serial 01'
II l1l lil llal art rrom 1968. Yet the complex ruJegames of the Theatre 01' Mis­
I;l k¡;s SCC Ill , llnlike their American counterparts. to pose the question ofwhat
Il:lp PcllS at the moment the system itself becomes unsustainable, where th e
'l'll o r' c nlers into the performance ami generates unpredictable patterns a nd
~'vc lIls M hreaks the system down completely . Conversely. Stuart Brisley"s
p!o:lfonnu nccs. while obviollSly related to the emergence ofBody Art in North
A lIlI,a ¡ca and continental Europe from 1968 , departed sharply from the for­
mu lisl slralegics of man y male American performance artists, articlllating
n vcrll y polilical contcnts through acts of endurance and Jirect negotiatio ns
w ilh Ihe viewer. x
y cl !.: vcn whc rc il :;hares ' theat ricaJly' roo led in n llcnces a nd concern s, Ih is
Br¡ Iish performallce is still mu rk ed by ils origins o lll ~ id t.: convcnliona l thculre
rl ,1I: lico. (b luinly. Ihe work ofThc PC\lnIC Silo\\! 11111 , on d Iltltc r gro ll ps ('J I'
Ih e 70s is c!luracl criNl·d hy pracl i¡;es un í! v\\!" ilh lll nl¡l'~ IIt )1 Il';¡t1i ly n.:cmlclh!d
"Il
1I 1~ I li S Ir I I V 1 \ tI I
\Vilh Ihe pulilkal ¡Illd l¡;x lllal disL"\)\lrsc:; 0 1 lOs polilical lhcatrc. Indccd . il
is Ihis sens!.: o!" 1d alinnsh ip ano yd dislancc. 01' a 'lheatricality' somehow
cOllllccleu lo ami yet rcmoved from the prevailin g languages and practices
of ' lhcatre' amI 'drama· th a t marks out another diffcrence from wo rk outside
Ihc lJK. Whilc in Norlh Alllcrica , particularly, Performance Art emerged
within the highly theo rized field of ' avant-garde ' art, in Britain the 'new per­
lúnnance ' secmcd to strike up an ambivalent relationship \Vith a British theatre
rcsistant to these kinds of theo retical debates. Whereas North A merican and
continental European artists were clearly concerned to theorise lheir own
aclivities. frequently siting ' performance ' bet\\feen theatre, the legacy of the
art-object and 'concept art', debates oyer lhe identity ofthis Britisb Perform­
ancc Art have invariably ret urned to an uncerlain relationsh ip with domin­
ant theatre practices. T hus, in Per/órmllnce magazine , and at conferences in
Ihe ea rly 80s, ' perform a nce' is invariably characterized, first of all , as ' not
Iheatre'9, belying a sen se that, at this time, a separate field has not someho w
bcen fully marked out or made suff¡ciently distinct.
Yel it is around this uncertain point 01' 'difference ' that, since the 80s,
North American 'avant-garde' perrormance a nd British Live Art have con­
verged in ways which the earlier Perfo rmance Arl ra rely did . In the UK, as
carly as 198 1, Performance magazin e identified a shift within Perfo rmance
Art to\Vard a more direct, self-conscioLls address to the term s and vocabulary
nI' conventional th ea tre practice associated \Vith Lumiere & Son. Hesitate
& Demonstra te and M ov ing Being, a kind or work the Institute of Contem­
porary Arts in London presented as operating ' both across and o utside thc
bOllndaries that are defined by the terms: pl ay, dance. mime, perfO mlaDce.
opera'.' o Latterly, in the us, and particularly from the mid 80s, Perfo rmance
Art strategies have increasin gly come to meet theatre forms and figures, using
'performance' as a lever to address the construclion , efrect and limits 01'
I hcatrical vocabulary, even bringing the strategies of Performance Art to
!Jca!" upon the rea lisation of playtext."
Such coincidences have drawn British perfo rmance criticism , and British
performance itself, into a wider exchange of ideas and practices. It is in thi s
l'ontcxt that Greg Giesekam , in /1 ViellJ./i"ol11 Ih e Edge, a doc umentation of
( 'Ianjamfrie's The Wor/d's Edge, traces o ut the recent development of overtly
' post-modern ' approaches to performance in the work 01' Scottish groups
slIch as Test Depa rtment (Scotland) and R a ndom Optic. In the essay framing
!lis description or the piece. Giesckam goes on lo associate The World's Edge ,
:1 pcrrormancc linkcd to the quincentena.ry ofColumbus' a rrival in the Amer­
icas, with a ncw political theatre described by the American writers Philip
i\lIslalidc r amI Johanncs Birringer.' 2 Identify ing in Clanjamfic's fragmented
alld !"rcq uc ntl y self-rcflexi ve Illlllt i-medi a perfo rmance a 'dialogic' intenveav­
ill g o r cQ llllidin g c lll tural ami pCI"S\1 na l hi stories. G icsekarn obser ves the effect
\Ir Ihl' work 's resi sl ancc 1.0 ..1 t-. l n ~ l c '1111 1huris in g' narrali vc in ils treatment 0 1'
'liargcd his lorica l und po lil ical ill lll)'l'l v W hi lc (i icsckam scls C'lúnjamfric 's
I~ I
 Y I N f.' i\·T.-SlCl' .\N II 1" ' ItIII Il ~I ,\N I :' , AR I
WI II 1,. aga in ~1 I he t~l li IS llf"1 his N uf! h .'\II I~ Il l'" 1I lid 1,1 k, ill I hei r conll ihll l i(lns
Anórcw Q lIh.:k, S lIsan MGlrosc anu S ll n~1II " lile., "ltlk I,lwuró lhe discollrses
which have underpinneó rnlluh 01" this pc rfÚrlll HI Il'e critieism, drawing in
various ways on continental Europcan critical thcory and phil osophy to
elaborate problcrnatics within British Live Art. It is within this nexus 01'
ióeas, too , that the irnplications for the performance critic o f the 'intcrdis­
ciplinarity' associateó with Live Art become clcar, Wh ile contemporary critical
theory And notions 01' post-modernism might draw the critic into rctkcting
upon the nature of the oetinition theoretical analysis inevi tably brings to iLs
object ,13 so the attempt to cngage critically with the ' interoiscipl inarity' 0 1'
Live Art ocmanós reflection baek on the project ano practice 01' criticism,
a rdkxivity evidelll in current performance theory.'4
Ir the 'interóisciplinary' aspect 01" Live Art indicates more than an eclectie
'experimental theatre '. it surely points towards an interoisciplinarity within
Lhe Live Art work itself. Such a work might be constituteo by a playing of one
set 01" terms through or against another, it mighl be a work that is located
belween points, forms 01' practices, 01' one which plays upon the terrns
through which it is seen. In the t~lce of such events, the critic cannot easily, o r
unselr-conseiously, oraw on the verities of a single set 01' terms Cit's theatre',
'it 's art ' , even, 'it's performance art ') to oescribe 'the work ', as the very
stabilities these terms assurne are calleo into question by that which is being
adoresseo . Here, withollt dOllbl , definition is itself an issue. This is not to
suppose that 'Live Art ' has an overbearing concern for its own formal
oefinition, but that the meeting and mixing 01' practices and vocabularies it
invariably presents give rise to a slippage, a move that resists being pinned
down , but which is evioently important to a wioe range 01' work.
Although rormally quite distinct frorn Clanjaml"rie's work , Mike Pearson
and Bobby Baker's discussions in interview, oftheir solo performances, take
up these kinds of concerns. Here, both performers reflect upon thcir o wn
SCllse 01' 'self as source' in the generation ano presentation of work, a notion
Ihat Mara de Wit is concerneo to theorize in her text for the ' Perforrnance
Lcctllre', Se!{ as Source, Par( JI. For Pcarson ano Baker, ano despite rhe
o bviolls oil"ferences in their work , 'gossip', the personal narrative and hist o ry,
;)lId ;) conflation of the perl"ormer ano performance, work to displace the
a 111 hority ofthe 'big narrative ' or myth. Thus in F/"Om Mell10ry (199 1) Pearson
sets his O\\'n feat of rnernory, a remembering of his personal history, and a
rcading ofhis body as a 'site '. against the folk memory ofa peculiar interscc­
lion nI" WeJsh history and the Wild West. Baker, meanwhile. skilfully wra ps
I'if,~rill/ '.1' Progre,I',I' around an everyday event, a shopping trip, as a challengc
lo the dism issal ofthe experiences ofdomestic life. T hc result is witty, Ill ov ing
;)lId sharply politica!. Oaker herself suggests U1at 11011' (o S/¡op: 1"he Lec(l/rl'
(1 '.)9.1) 'was abn ut <In (Iwa.n:n~ss thalmy ó ail y b;lIw l Ji re W.IS nol give n ell{l ugh
il llporlan cc' IHl li ng Ihal 'l'm lrying lO rcclai lll IlIy ~'x pl:lil~ ll~<:S, Illy sC1(ual ily
amI llIy 1l: llli nilli ly ', t'lIns idelÍlIg sllc h ':111111 I'\'II¡' " II IIII \'\" ill 'hl' c.:l1nl.éxl \Ir
'''''''1
1I1( , I '.'i 11 1 'V I R ',
IIn.IJ da nec' ,111\1 I iv~ Art sinec Ihe /Os, Mara d c Wil rcllccts upon her posi­
ll1HI as hnth 'o hjcct' ami 'sourec' at tll(: O1 l) nwnt 01' her prescnce before the
VIl'WCr. Obscrving the interpcnetralion or 'performance' and the perforrner's
Jire, shc traces he!' conslrllction 01' work through a multiplicity of selves and
l"IHlsiJcrs her articulation 01' these voices through the intersection 01' Live Art
IIlId 'new dance' , Live Art and ' reallire'. SlIch work has obvious connections
wilh the 'post-mode rn ' ' de-centring' Giesekam outlines, resisting, as it does,
Ihe dominance of a single narrative or myth through the presentation of 'other'
voices and stories.
While De W it emphasizes her awareness of her presence berore the alldience,
ami Pearson and Baker self-consciously tell their stories direclly to the spec­
lator, in their essays, Tirn White. Andrew Quick and Sirnon Jones lin k the
l'I"ficacy 01' recent Live Art to an acute awareness 01' the ' Iive event'. Address­
illg in this context practitioners as diverse as Robin Blackledge, Forkbeard
hllltasy, Forced Entertainmcnt Theatre Co-operative, OV8, ami Gloria,
l hese articles consioer the resistance of recent performance to the stabalizing
point of view.
Setting recent work by Robin Blackledge ano Forkbeard Fantasy against
l"ontcmporary rnultimedia performance. Tim White , in The Screen: Looking
I/I/"Ough il, )Valking lhrollgh il. observes this performunce' s critical addrcss to
the 'screen' as 'window and barrier', Observing the play between rnedia in this
work, ano its construction through a sustained deferral between live ano
lIIediateo presences, White traces out these perforrnanccs' ernpowcring of the
viewer through their invitation to reflect critically upon the aet of seci ng and
Ihe effect of meoiation. Writing against the backdrop of postmodern theory,
Andrew Quick seeks, in Searching/or Redempliol7 in Cardhoard Wings: Fo/"ced
FI/(cr(ail7l11en( ami (he Suhlime, to move between Forced Entertainmcnt's
sl:lr-conscious explorations 01' 'tlctional worlds saturated by a sense of loss '
and Jcan-Fran<;ois Lyotaro ' s account of the sublirne as 'the unpresentable in
prcsentation itself ', a moment which Lyotaro sees as an inherently political
disrllption of thc terms in play. In doing so, Quick looks toward the corn­
pkxities of the Iive evenl which writing invariably suppresses, and with it
Ihe corruption of 'the " proper" space 01' representation ' which performance
IlIi~',ht cfTect and eriticism reinstate. Addressing these tensions in another
\Vay, Sil1lon Jones rcflects upon his own engagement as spectator and critic with
Il'~cnt Live Arl 's resistance to critieal oiscourse. Orawing on aspects 01' the
'sl"icnces orcol11plexity' in Demol1ology: sorne lhollghls toward (/ science o/,chu().I'
ill re'I'cn( jJcr!(¡rnwnc(', .Iones engages self-consciously in a 'figuring (of) theatre
;IS ,:vcllt-scrics and fl LlX ' , an cxploration of recent performance's 'refusal to
he sta bilized as tcxL' , Jones' position echoes an anxiety underlying mueh
poslll1ml crn discoursc. as he attcmpls to rcmcmber that which the perform­
alll.:<: mau... cvi d cnt as it was seén htll wh ich cannot be adequately re-presented
whc tl it is wli llclI aholl\. I> raw ín l' . 11t Ihe :-¡c icnces again. Jo nes calls into
,!lIeSl io" Ihe r Osi lioll 01" Ihe ... ri ,i ~· 1I\ll irW 11 1;11 :
," ~ \

'Qu anturn m t.:~h anlc~ has sh\l wll lla;11 II11.:US II II.:IIII.:1l1 IS no l I1ClIll"al ,
without l:Ollscquel1ce ror lhe systl.:l1I ~lh~crVl:d. My n:marks m a kc;
and in making the demon, it evapora tes 011 me at the very instante 01'
its compliancc, its coherence within my theories.'
Such concerns are reflected again in Susan M elrosc's essay, Please please me
as she considers the nature of 'new performance' and the cost of 'translating'
performance into discourse. Defining Live A rt as a perfomlance practicc whjch
is ' about (not as in "subtext" , but as i.n " around. and a bo ut " ) performance' ,
Melrose seeks to test and challenge the ve racity of recent critical diseourse
through a notion of ' new performance ' as 'metapraxis' . Arg uing that dis­
coursive practice, or the production of critical Jiscourse. is itself a 'complcx
performance practice' , M elrose unpacks variolls critical approaches to recent
performance through a self-refiexive mode of writing which is ,I\vare of ilse1f
as practice. In this way, Melrose takes on the implications of the object she
writes toward , engaging in a critica] meta praxis just as she speculates on the
'interpraxiological' nature of Live A rt and the satisfaction s it might have
to offer.
It is at this moment , too , that the rclationship between critical discourse
and 'documentation ' comes into question. Where a critical engagement with
Live Art might force a reflection back upon the practice 01' criticism , so this
difference between performance-practiee and critical discourse mu st h ave
consequences for the ' recording' of work. The point is an ill1portant one,
retlected not only in the tendency here by critics to draw on post-modero
theory in their discussion and in these artists ' particular re-presentations
of work through 'docume ntation ' , but in the dialogue between 'essay' a nd
'documentation ' through which Brilish Live Arl: Essays and Documenta/ions
is constructed.
Like contemporary critical theory, Performance Art has had much to say
about the 'trace' ; the rclic, recording or document that remains afler the
'event' . In particular, where Performance Art arises as a challenge to the
'object ' in art, 'documentation' invariably presents itself as threatening lo
n:instate those stabilities and terms this very move toward ' performance'
l:hallengcs . Similary, where performance sites itself between vocablllaries,
disrupts expectations or stresses the ' Iiveness' of the event , it can be under­
slood as evading precisely the kinds of determinations a documentation'
re-presentation ofwhat did happen implicitly lays daim too Indecd , this ver y
assumption, that documentation might have aecess to what has happened.
supposes a transparcncy and stability the event it would remember lllighl
onn: have called into question . In this way, the n , and like critical JiscO llrse
ilselr, d(lcumentation mediates between the 'pro b le m ' 01' the work (its chal­
kngc lo Ihe vicwer in being done) a nd the o ne who no w vie ws. In sile-spe<.:il ic
w\)r". Ihc 'rccording' invariabl y su pp rcsses Ihe llnl:erta int ies the intcr pcllCl ra­
li ( lI l ~ hClween Ihe ·malh.:· a nd Ihe ' rounJ ' rl ()\'~l"~' W hl:rc pcrl "ormancc a mi
~:!.~
11 R I 1 1" 11 l. I \ I .\ I( 1
pe l fq rlll:lltw sl ylc shadows, dispbn:s ami Gdls into question tcxt, 'role' and
the conve nlional fig ures of dramatic presentation. or where a performance
shirts between Illedia. doclIl1lcnlation invariably finds itself unable to speak
adel.JlIatcly of lhe dialogue o ut of which the work is constituted.
It is in th is context, that, in creating él 16 page graphic 'documentation' of
bllll1anuelle Enclwl1led, Tim Etchells and Richard Lowdon 01' Forced Enter­
lainment Theatre Co-operative use material derived from the performance to
readdress concerns for excess information and ineom pletion . R a ther th a n
spcculating upon the ' meaning' 01' Emmanuelle Enchan/ed 01' reeounting the
II1cchanisms by which it operated , this presentation offers an ex perience ana­
logous to that 01' a meeting with the event which preceded it. C alling on the
' rragmented/atomised ' nature of the p e rformance, its rhythms and structures,
and the framin g and processing 01' information these moves effeeted , this
' re-presentation ' resists being read as a transparent record , bul furthers the
work's dissemination through a variety 01' forms , a process which Foreed
Entertainment have pursued more recently through installation-work in col­
laborations with I-Iugo Glendinning, such as Red Room (1993). Within Live
¡\rt such a play between means is not uncomm OIl. Brith Gol', in particular,
ha ve reeently pursued site-specific performance , video , 'docurnentation ', tele­
vision , anJ music-recordings around a single project, l!aearn (1992). Sueh
'documentation' presents itself as provoking or extcnding the very questio ns
lhe work may have posed to the viewer. refusin g to resol ve the issue of w hat
the work ' is' (and so \vas') ' about'.
Whi1e such presentations would seem to acknowledge the ul1reproducibitity
ofthe 'event', treating 'doeumentation ' as another mode of wo rk , Simo n Jones
takes a similar attitude toward criticismo In constructing his es say through a
Illontage 01' ' parallel texts' , he. Iike Etchells and Lowdon, organises the page
so as to make an event 01' reading . Such addresses to the act of reading evoke,
again , that which cannot be written about without being transformed , and
which Andrew Quick, arter Lyotard, introduces in terms ofthe radical singul­
arity 01' the ' event' . Mara de Wit's essay takes up another aspect of t h is
debate, siting itse\f between essay and documentation . Thus S elfas Source,
!'ar{ // offers itself to the reader as a documentation 01' a ' Performance
Lecture' , a mode 01' writing through which de Wit is able to refiect upon the
viewer's meeting with the page as she speeulales upon her meetin g as per­
formcr with an audience.
Such challenges are refiected in different ways in differing 'documentations' .
.ltllian Ma yna rd Smith provides a record of T/¡e Orade, a site-specific per­
formance by Station I-Iouse Opera presented outside and inside the Serpcntine
<. ialle ry in .1 une 199 3. Rather than record its 'effcct' in this space, Maynard
Sl11ilh seIs ou t in formation nccClisary for ils rcstaging. inc1uding texts , adions,
pé rrMma nC(! pl uns a nd ph ol ngw p hs . Y el, Iikc Stalion I lou se Opera's own
' n.:s lagin !;ts· in other p la L:cs. sud l :\ pClfunn a nL:c w ould fi nd ils ' ~pecificity '
;lIICW, q\lil,' upu rl l"ro lll lhe l)Uc!\II\l Il ·: .. 1 p~ll \ lrnl ;lncc-s l y \c an J <¡Dund, whk h
,',

 V I ~nf,. l
1\ H I 1 1'" 11 t.I V I ¡ ,\ 1(' 1

.1 , Bil'llll ¡J.\.'1 n",tII"" J'/WOf\' , /'o s/II,o ,k l'll ism . IlId ialla 1I11iwrsit y Pn:ss, 1l1oontillg­
th (!Sl: no tes esdl\'w. 111 t hi ~ SI.'II S':. l h ~ ~<: dlll' lIl1lL' lI 1 , l " It'l tll lI ll.'r i;t1s di aWII rm m
tun & I m.! i; \ll:Ip.,lis, I'NI.
a pCrrOrOlanC<: uf 1 '/¡e 0 /'( /1'/1' wh il:h lilld Ih<:IHsc h l.!" h~'I WCI: II radically dilú:r­ 1 \ .l. lIaudri lla rd , 'f'¡'(' /:;'-s/asl' O{ COII/II/I/II;crilio/l , SCll1io(cxl(c) , New York . 1988 .
ing evenls, as if lo stress lhe singulari lY 01' ..::1(.;11 'sit \!-~ Jl<:<:ilic' realisation. T. Dllchcrly . A/;(',. 171m,.y , RoUllcdgc, Nc\V York & LOlldon . 1990.
In contrast again. Greg Gieseka m ' s essay ofTe rs a vil:w uf lhe workings and I,l 1'. Auslandcr., cssay revicw . The f)rml/{/ RCl'icIV, vol 37. 110:1 ( 1993), ppl96-- 201 .
conlents 7/¡e World'.1 Edge intercut with comments and recollecti ons fmm
members 01' the company. In working in this way. G iesek a m balances an
account of the operation of the piece with the performer's inte rruptions and
digressi o ns, echoing the formal construction 01' th e work itself,
Sueh interpenetrations, as well as through their vari o us engagements with
eontemporary critical and theoretical disco urse, many of these presentations
a ltempt to recall the very evasions and ephemerali ties of Live Art and th e
Live Art work th a t make these events and p raetiees diffieult to define. In this
respect, the debate over L ive A rt is to be found as much in the form a l
dialogue between contribulions, between radieally differing geslures toward
performance, and in the moves between 'essay' and 'documentation ' , as it is
in the content of the individual papers themselves . These differences demon­
slrate thal the terms hy which ' Live Art' can be approached nol only remain
in flux, but are perhaps al their most honest and useful while they are still in
lhe process determination , still subject to a sharp, self-reflexive questioning of
their nature and effect.

Notes
D . M. Levin , 'Postm o dernism in Dan<:e: Dance, Disco urse, Democracy' in
PoslIHodernism Philo.\'ophy and lh e Arls, edited by H. J. Silverman , Routled gc,
London. 1990.
N . Kaye, PosllI1oc!ernism ({mI Per/órmilI1Ce, MacMillan , London, St Martin 's Press,
New York , 1994.
H. Sayre. The Ohj e<:l oI Pe/jrmnal/ce, U nive rsity of Chiea go Press, Chicago &
London , 1989.
2 J. Nuttall , Per/órnwnce Arl, Volllme One: ¡l,{mlOirs, Jo hn Calder, London,
19 79.
3 A. Henri, Er/I'irol1/11cl1lS ({I/(I Happcl1il1J;s, Thames & H ud so n, Lo ndon , 1974.
4 J. McGrath , A Good Nighl 01/1 , Mcthucn , London. 1981.
5 A . Howell and F. Tcmpleton , Elemel1/s oIPe/jórmal1('e Arl, Lonc!oll: Ting: Thea/ re
o( M iS/akcs. 1977.
6 M. Kirby, A Form({lisl Thea/re , University of Pcnnsylvania Prcss, Philadelphia ,
198 7.
7 S. Banes. Terpsichore il1 SI1e{{kers, 2nd cdition , Wesl eyan Univers ity Press,
M iddleto n, 1987,

8 S. Brisley, Conversations, 'Audio ArlS ¡\;/agmine, vol 4, no 4 (1981).

9 R. La Frenai s, 'Live Art ha s its Da)', Perjim l1{(/1Ce, no 14 ( 1981) pp 5- 6.

10 Perjimnal1ce. no 9 (1981) pp15 - 16.

11 M . Vandcn HeuvaL Pe/jimnil1J; Dralll((IDr(/m({/i ~ ;l1g !'"r/iml/(II/('(', Univcrsity 01'
Michigil n Press. Ann Arbor, 1991.
! 2 P. Ausl;w der , Prcsel1 ce (//1(/ Resis/(/I1(,{,: P/>.IIII/O¡/j'/'I/ /I'II/ (I/I ,{ ( 'I/I//o',d Poli/;,',\' i/l
'o/llemporarr Amerimll Perjórmal1(,i'. U ni vl:l1Ii l y (JI Mil'l ll ll;1II I'n:ss, Michi gall .
11)92.

.,"t, ¿::;¡

9 Richards r~a d rrom their poetry, eithcr amongst the spectators, or standing
PE R FO RM A NCE A RT
I IIrollgh the aisles chased hy the dog \Vho, in the mea ntime, had turneJ maJ . 2
ANO R I TUAL
wiched hetween the glass) and c1ips ol' film onto the paintings on the ceiling;
Bodies in performance
rmm the ceiling do\Vn the \Valls, the setting sun. Ja y W a tt sat in a comer and
Erika Fischer-Lichte
SPLlln:: 'IlImlre ResearcJ¡ IlIlernal/olla/ 22( 1) ( 19')7): 22 37.
1. Discovcring performath'ity
DlIring the summer school at Black Mountain College in 1952, an ' untitl ed
cvent ' too k place, initiated by John Cagc. The participan ts induded , besides
Cage, the pianist David Tudor, the composer Jay Watts, the painter Robert
Rauschenberg, the dancer Merce Cunningham and the poets M ary Caroline
Richards and Charles Olsen. Preparations for the 'event' were minima!. Each
performer was given a 'score' which consisted purely 01' 'time brackets' to
indicate moments of action , inaction ami silence that each performer was
cxpected to fil!. Thus, it was guara nteed that there would be no causal rela ­
tionship between the different actions and 'anything that happened arter that,
happened in the observer himself ' .1 The audience \Vas gathered from other
participanls at the summer school , members of the college staff a nd thei r
ramilies, ami people from the sUlTounding countryside.
The seats fo r the spectators \Vere set out in the dining hall ofthe college in
rront 01' eaeh \Vall in the form 01' four triangles, wh ose lips pointed to the
centre 01' the room without touching each other. Thus, a large free space wa s
created in the centre ol' the room in which, as it happened, very little action
took place. Spacious aisles between the triangles erossed the room di ago n­
ally. A white cup was placed on each seat. The spectators did not receive any
explanation: some used the cup:.; as ashtrays. From the ceiling were hung
paintings by Rohert Rauschenberg- h is 'wh ite paintings' .
( \ lge, in a hlack suit ami ti e. slood o n a step laducr ami read a text 0.11 'the
rclati on or musi<.: lO /cn Budd hÍlnTl ' and ex<.:erpls I"ro m M astcr Ed lla rt. La ter
hl! pcrf Mmcd a 'cnrnpositi o n with a raJio'. I\ t tl le s:lI m: time, Ra llschenhcrg
pla ycd llld rccnn ls 011 a wiml- up gral1l ophollC wlll l 11 II IlI lIpcl whi le a Ii stcning
'"''
,q It ,.' I HU..I 1\ N ( , l · ¡\ R 1 ¡\ N 1¡ I( I I U ¡\ I
d ng. sal hrsld c il. alld D uv id TlIu or playcd a 'p rc pa red piano' . 1\ littlc la Le r,
TwJor ~la rt ud to pom water rroll1 onc b ucket into a nol her, while Olsen and
011 a laddcr leaning against one 01' the walls. Cunningham and others danceJ
Rallschcnberg projected abstract sliJes (created by coloured gela tine sand­
the film dips showed tirst the school cook, and then , as they graJually moved
played different instruments . At the end ofthe performance four boys, dressed
in white, serveJ cofree into lhe cups, regardless 01' whether the spectators had
lIsed them as ashtrays or not.
There ca n be no Jouht tha t the ' untitled event' is to be regardeJ as a
I'cmarkable event in the theatre hist ory 01' Western culture, as lTlueh of the
relationship created between performers anJ spectators, as of the kinJ 01'
interaetion betwcen the differe nt arts.
At first glance, it may appear as though the spatial arrangement favoured a
rocllsing ofthe centre. During the performance , however, it hecame cIear that
such central focus did not exist. The spectators were able to Jireet their attenli on
lo different aetio ns taking place simultaneously, whether in different parts
01' the room, or joining ami overlapping. Moreover, they were in such a posi­
lion lhat wherever they looked , they always saw other spectators involved in
the act of perceiving. In o ther words, the action s were not to be perceived in
isolation from each other, nor were they unrclated to the o ther percei ving
spectators, despite the f<ICt that they were n ot causally related to each other,
and the perspective on other spe<.:tators was not determined or controlled.
On the other hand , by placing a cup on each seat, one element was intro­
duceJ that challengeJ the spectators to ae! without, however, prcscrihing
how . They could pi<.:k it up, handle it, put it on the Aoor, throw it to another
spcctator. hide it in their bags, use it as an ashtray. Whatever the case, th e cup
challengeJ the spectators to act at the beginning ofthe performance as well as
at the end (after the boys had poureJ lhe cofree) without forcin g them to Jo
anylhing in particular.
In the performance, difl'erent arts were involved : music, painting, film ,
dance, poetry. They were not united into a Wa gnerian GesamtkuIlS/lw!rk­
rather, it seems that their unrelated coexistence dosely approximated Wagner's
lIightmare, 'oL ro l' example, a reaJing of a Goethe novel and the performance
or a Bcethoven symphony taking place in an art gallery am ongst various
statues',\ nor was thcir use motivated , causeJ or justified by él common goal
111' f"ullction ; they were only eo-ordinated by the 'time brackets'. None the less.
\"IlITcspondcncc did occur in the pa rticular style oftheir appcarance. They all
pi ivilcgcu lhe pnfor m ali vl' IlHlUC: ll w 11lw,ic was playcd, the poetry recited .
th l,! film sllow n , painting wa s pctfull\u:~ 1 in ~ (J rar as Rauschenherg changed
h iNwhil L: pai n ti ng... hy pnljcc lill p slhh:s n lll\l Ihelll, ' paint ing thcl11 over', ami
lil

 \ 1'1 11 1110 .\ 11 '1 .~NI) ,'I)H I-! ) R M A N(' I: A l{ 1
d ill1~l' is ,d ways Il'ah /\.'d a~ lIl1 l1\'1 l l1 l1 01' movell1ent. Thc ' u Ilion 01" lh\.' arts ·.
1111: IlallsAII.!s~ i!l1l .ll lhl: honJl:ls 0 1' lhe dissolution ofthe bordcrlinC!i separal­
III /;'- !lile a rl 1'111111 allolher. was accomplished here because all were re~t1 izcJ in
a perrorJllalivc lIloJe, nllls lhe perforll1ative fun ction was foregrounded , eithcr
hy raJically rcducing lhe rercrenlial function (for instance, in the unre1atedness
01' lhc acliolls. which could not be connecteJ into a story or a Illeanin grllI
'sYllIbolic' conflguration; or by the refusal to give the 'untitled ' event a title),
or by elllphalically stressing the performative function (for instance, by the
arrangell1ent of actiolls 01' by the emphasis put on lhe fact that it was an
'lIntitled erent'.)
'!'hus. one can conduJe that the historical relevance of the 'untitled event'
is l'ounded on its diseovery of the perfonnative. That is not to say that Euro­
pC<ln culture has not been performative before the 1950s. Q uite the contrary:
¡,toing back through the l:enturies we find th at from the MiJJIl: Ages to rhe
l'nd 01' the eighteenth l:entury, European culture can most adeq uately be
lkscribeJ as a predominantly perforlllative culture. Even in the eighteenlh
l'l'nlury. when alphabetization and litemcy grew among the Illiddle d ass,
ITading \Vas seldom perfoll11ed as a silent act in isolation from others, b ut
rather as reading aloud to others in different kinds of cirdes. Therefo re it is
1101 an exaggeration to state that European culture, at least unlil the end of
lhe eighteenth century (and in many areas throughout the nineteenth cent ury,
too) consisted largely 01' different genres of cultural perfoImance.
The term 'cultural performance' was coined by the American anthropolo­
gisl Milton Singer. In the 1950s Singer used the term to describe ' particular
inslances 01' cultural organization , for instance, weddings, temple festival s.
rccilatives, plays, dances, musical concerts, and so on'.4 Aceording to Singer,
a culture articulales its self-understanding amI se1f-image in cultural perform­
;lIlces which it presents and exposes to its members as \Vell as to outsiders. 'For
lhe outsider, these can conveniently be taken as the most concrete observable
lInits 01' the cultural structure, for each performance has a definitely limi led
lime span. a beginning and end, an organized programme ofactivity, a set 01'
pnrormers. an audience and a place and occasion of performance."
Whereas until the 1950s, él consensus existed among Western scholars thal
culture is produced and Illanifested in its artefacts (texts and monuments).
which. aceordingly have been taken as the proper objects of study in lhe
hUlllanities, Singer drew attention to the raet that culture is abo produced anu
IlIanifcstcd in performanees. He established the performative as a constitu live
rllncti on orculture and provided another convincing argument 1'01' the imporl­
allce 01' the performative mode in culture.
('ulllln: as a predorninantly material culture, consisting 01' and formcd hy
dllCllJlIl'n ts ami 1Il0nUlllents. had becorne a pn:v<ú lilJ ~ (,;(lIKept in the ll il W­
lcenlh cenl ury. a ll ho ugh, eVl! n then, the 1\0(11 )11 was vivmn llsly allackcd
;IS. 1'11 1 insl'lI1cc. hy 1:J'i ecl rich Nie lzsche. Nlln\: tl ll ' kss il was lit is no li llll
whid l grl'ully ill ll uolll'cu. il 11 01 delc rmincd 11 1. d\!\" ¡" PlIll'l ll IH\ I '11I1 v (\1' 111"
1111
1' 1 I( 1 ~ 1I 1t M ¡\ N ( ' 1 \ IU 1\ N (l IU 1 1I ¡\ 1
1lIl llIall itics, hlll also 01' olhe!' l'ldllll'al dOlllaills, In IIK'atre. rol' example, the
(ll: Jl o l'lllali w alt 11(11' . ' '(('('l/('/)('('. the Meininger foregrounded the Iiterary
In l 01" Ihe drallla. on the one hallll-- which arter many years of adaptation
\Vas 1hen no lon gcr open to revision- and the preser\lablc elcments of the
pellúrma nce such as the set and lhe l:Ostullles, on the other. Culture, aeeord­
II II! 10 nineteenth-l:entury cOllllllon belief. \Vas manifested by and resulted in
a Ileracts whil:h could be preserved and handed down to the next generation .
It was against this that avant-gardist 1ll0Velllents sUl:h as the futurists,
dadaists and surrealists direeted their flerl:e attacks, proclaiming the destruc­
li¡)n orthe museums and hailing velocity and ephemerality as the true culture
\'reating torces orthe fllture. In this respect, the Futurist seral e and the Dadaist
\"fIirh',\' can be seen as 'forerunners' to Cage's 'untitled event'. But while the
lúlllrists and dadaists roeused on the destructive rorces of their performanl:es
ill order to shock the audiences- 'épatcr le bourgeois'--and to destroy bour­
1'-:ois l:llltllre, Cage's event emphasized the new possibilities opening IIp not
only for the artists but also for the audiences. The performative mode here
was applied as a means 01' 'Iiberating' the spectators in their al:t of perceiving
ami creating meaning.
In the 1950s, perrorrnativity was not only reclaimed by the arts. In anthro­
pology the notion of cultural performance \Vas recognized , in Iiterary theory
Roland Barthes rocused on the creativity of l'écrilure instead of the static text
(as in Le Degré zéro de l'écrilure, published in 1953) and in philosophy John
1.. !\ustin defined what he chose to call 'the speech act'o Austin developed a
philosophy oflanguage, which he presented al the William James Lectures at
Ilarvard University in 1955 under the title: 'How To Do Things With Words'.
I k put rorward the pioneering, ir not revolutionary idea that linguistic
lI1terances do not only serve to describe a procedure 01' to state a faet but con-
1,'IHled that the mere uttering ofthem simultaneously perrorms an aet as, ror
l'xample. the act 01' describing, stating, promising. congratulating, l:ursing, and
so on. What speakers oflanguage llave always known intuitively and pral:tised
accordingly was , for the first time, artielllated in a philosophy of language:
lan guage not only serves a rererential function , but also a performative one.
That whil:h Austin 's theory of speeeh al:t accolllplished with regard to the
J..nowledge ol'language, Cage's ' untitled event' realized for theatre. Suddenly,
Ihat which theatre artists and spectators had known intuitively and practised
rOl' ages beca me evident: theatre no! only fulfils a rererential functi on, but a
pnrorlllative one, too. Whereas, at the beginning or the I950s, the Western
dl'alll<ltie theatrc elllphasized the psychological motivation for actions, plot
l'ollstrllction . scellic arrangements, but ignored the pcrformative function of
Ihcatre. thc ' untilled event' foregrounded the performative function , recalling
110.; permanen t existcnce in th ca lre and bringing it back into view.
f .l achil'w lh is, pc rlo rlTla m;c :11'1 sel ilscl f in opposition not only to the
l'oll lCmpnrary m I tll urkct. tha l il\ :-. i:,lcu (In Ihc prod ul:tion 01' objeets, ar
;lIll:facIs as C\llllTn odi tics, hll l ¡liso \11 ~ ol\l el11r llrar y thca lre. Whercas the
"\I
 y. I :"> 1 J 1\ I 1\-Ir l
l"1l1l1l:l\1porary stage IIsually 1>11'.111111: 11 ,lIl\1 lh ~·t "pan: Willy Lom un's liv ill "
1Olllll, ror instance, or lhl: mad whc l \: I )Id l u nLl <. ;ogo arl: wailing ror (ioulll
llw dining hall in Black MoulI la in (. 'o lkg\! did nol signiry any o thcr spucc_ O lll:
l11ighl spel:ulate on whelher lhe spccili c arrangements o f lhe I"our lrian gles
I'ormed by the spel:tators' seats pointed lo a fi gure 01" the Yijing ami coulo be
inlnpreteo accordingly_ But this is quite another matteL Fi rst, there was
110 particular segment in the room delineated for the perfo rmers to which a
pa rticular meaning could be attributed; second, any mea ning deri ved from
lhl: Yijing would have to be related to the whole room and, third , reference 10
lhe Yijillg does not provid c any due to the meaning 01" the act ioDS_The space
was a real space, and it did not signify another (fictiona l) space. R a ther, il
Sl:~' IIIS lhat it provoked a kind of oscillating reception. The spectator who
ti il:d lo make sen se of the event and ils single elements/actions, became a ware
tllat hl'r/his usually applied patterns ofconstituting meaning did not fit. The
II su.II patterns were not discarded as uselcss, however, but rather held in
ahcyam:e, called up, present, and yet somehow inapplicablc. Trying to apply
1h('1I1 did not provide answers, but led to further q ueslioning_ The dining hall
wa.s thc dining hall- to which the cup as wcJI as the film clip showing the
scl]()()I's cook alluded--and, at the same time, it was refunctionalized : during
1hl~ lime the untitJed event took place, it was another space, neither the dining
hall nor a particular fictional space. None the less, the spectator was not
prl'vented from perceiving it as a particular fictional space, if lhat occurred
tu her/him, nor from asking the question: ' What does this space signify or
mean?' In this case, the spectator might have conduded , at lhe end of lhe
performance, that it did not mean anything (in the sense of a referent attrib­
lIled by the event). Space and its perception underwent a metamorphosis, a
transformation, as did Ihe search for possible meanings 01' its single elements
Iike the cmpty centre, the aisles, and the step ladders.
Similar conclusions can be drawn concerning the sen se 01' time in the
perl'ormance and the performers. The time of the performance \Vas the real
time 01' its being performed. I t did not signify another time of the day , another
yca r or epoch, nor a time in which a fictitious character performs a particular
al·lion. It was the time that passed during the performance, structured by the
actioll , inaction and silences as indicated by the 'time brackets' of the score,
alld not necessarily another, fictional time.
Whereas in the theatre of the 1950s, the aetors used their bodies to signify
ficliona l characters, to perform actions that are supposed to signify aetions
hy lhese characters, and uttered words which signified the characters' speeches,
tho perl'ormers 01' the 'untitlcd event' employed their bodies in order to
pcrl'orm particular actions: to playa gramophone, different instruments or
a ' prc p¡n'el! pia no ', lO dance through lhe aisles, dimb a ladder, or operate
the projcctor. a mI so o n. When lhe perro rmers spoke, they ei ther reci lcd t bei r
()WII Icx ts nr Ihcy ¡nade it dea r th al lhey werc reading rrom texts by ot11c r
a IlI IH1IS. l nl hi.. wa v. q lll.!slipllt>w ncern il1.l' ficti o na l characlcrs , Iheir hisl0 ries,
}I\::!.
l ' l ' 1( l ' 11 (( ~I i\ l'~r r i\ I{ 1 \ N n n 1T 1I ,\ I
:ll' lIoIl S. 01' psydwfllgll.·lIl mn livall nns C() lIld 1101 ¡Irise: roal people pcrfo rmed
re, lI nt..IIOIIS in a real spa ce in a real time. W lIat \Vas at stak e was lhe perform­
;1I1 <.:e OL ll'l ion s I\(lllhe relalion 01' aclions to a tictional character in a fictional
story in a lictional \Vorld, or 10 one anolher, so that a 'meanin.gful \Vhole'
IIlight come illto existence.
1~Vl:n lhe role 01' the spectator was redefined. Since the referential function
lost its priority, the spectators did not need to search for given meanings or
SlruggJc to deciphcr possible messages formulated in the performance. Instead,
lhey were in a position to view the actions performed before their eyes a nd
Cars as raw material, and let their eyes wander betweell the simultaneously
pcrformed actions; lhey were allowed not to search for any meaning, or to
accord whatever meaning occllrred to them to single actions. Thus, looking
on \Vas redefined as an activity, a doing, according to their particular patterns
01' perception , their associations and memories as well as on the discourses in
which lhey participated.
At the beginning of the I 950s, the artefact in Westcrn culture was held to
be the absolllte constitutive factor of any arto Dramatic theatre proceeded
from a literary text, music composed or interpreted scores, poetry created
texts and the fine arts produeed works. Various hermeneutic processes of
interpretation proceeded from such artefacts, and returned lo them in order
to substantiate 01' jllstify different interpretations. The artefact dominated the
performance process to slleh an extent that its production (writing_ compos­
ing, painting, sClllpting), or its transformation into a performance (in theatre
and coneert) as well as of the performance itself and its receplion . had almosl
entirely slipped out of sight.
The ' llntitled event' dissolved the artefact into performance. Texts were
recited, music was played, paintings were 'painted over'-- the artefacts becamc
the aetions_ Thus, the borders between the different arts shifted. Poetry, music,
and the fine arts ceased to function merely as poetry, music, 01' fine a rb­
they were simuItaneously realized as performance art. They all changed into
theatre. Nol only did the 'untitled event ' redefine theatre by focusing on its
performative function; it also redefined the other arts. These were realized and
described as perForma/1ce. But. as mentioned before, the different arts did not
'lInite' in a Wagnerian Ge.wlI1lku/1SIWerk, bul into theatre, the performative
art par excellence.
Thus, the ' untitled event' not only blllrred the borderlines between lheatre
and the other arts, but al so those between theatre and other kinds of ' cultural
performance'. i\ theatre performance is to be regarded as a particular genre
nI' cultural performance which, by realizing the features identified by Singer,
partly differs from other genres ofcultural performance as, for instance, ritual,
po litical ceremony, festival, games, competition, Iectures, concerts, poetry
rcud ings.., fil m shows, a nd so on, amI partly overlaps with them .
Thc ' unt itlcu event' wa.., reali /.cu }IS a theatre performance in the Cllllrse 01'
whid , Ict:I Jlrl'S, p ~)Clry rcaoings,,, fi lm show, " slidc-shQw, concerts, lah!eaux
" \ ~\
 V 1 SU A L A IU A N () l' l · IU (1 I{ M ¡\ N t '1 i\ R 1
vivanl.\' (dog and gramophone, 'His M a!;ter's Voicc'), dance and él kino 01" ritual
o r feast (in the sharing of the coftee) took place. Ilowevcr, these cultural
pe rformances were not re-presented as in dramatic theatre, opera , or dassical
ballet; rather, the performance \Vas the realization , or the realization Ivas
the performance. Since, in this instance, thca tre occurred as a non-cau saJ,
non-linear sequence of discrete actions, represented before an C1udience. its
difTerence from other gen res of cultural performance became insignificant.
Performativity turned out to be the most important characteristic 01' theatre,
arl. culture. Theatre, art ami culture. thus, were redefined as performance.
F rom today's viewpoint, the ' untitled event' 01' 1952 appears lO have been
a rcvolutionary event in Westcrn culture. The trend towards performativity
w hid . has gradually grown since the 1960s in theatre, the other arts and in
cllltlln: in general , was lInmistakably articulated and uncompromisingly
realizcd in the ' untitled event'o Qne could state that Cage 's 'untitled event'
anu Austin 's speech act theo ry herald ed the era of a new performative culture
and were its first momentous manifestations.
ror such a performative culture, theatre understood as perfolmative art
/'lIr n :cellence- as rea1ized in performance art--- could serve as a model.
I I"theatre is understood as the paradigm of performative art ami, in this sense
;IS lhc model ofperformative culture, what, since the I 960s, has it contributed
lo lhe development of such a new performative culture? This issue will be
addressed by drawing on some examples from so-cal1ed perfo rmance art.
Many performances consist of the performance of everyday practices. For
instance. in the piece Cyc/e .lor Water Buckels, first performed in 1962, the
FLUXUS artist Tomas Schmit, knelt in a cirde formed by ten to thirty
buckets or bottles, one of which was filled with water. Clockwise, he poured
its contents fram bucket to bllcket- - until all the water was spilled or evap­
Mated . By taking the action out of al1 possible context, the search for its
intcntion, purpose, conseq uence or meaning was doomed to be as unsuccess­
fuI or, at least to remain as undccided as in the case of the elements in the
'u lltitled event'o The focus lay on the very process by which the action was
perl"ormed. The spectators witnessed how Schmit pomed water from bucket
lo bucket ami since the context in which such an activity could be performed
in l:veryday Jife was lacking, one could not attribute a meaning to it- as, for
l'x ample, preparing to c1ean the flnor, extinguishing a fire , filling a trough .
d caning a bucket/bott1e, demonstrating a safe hand , and so on: Schmit's
aelion cOllld mean a]] this, sOlllething else or just what it was : pouring water
fmm nne bucketlbottle into the next.
Other perforlllances al1ude to or draw on different genres of cultural
Ill: rl"o rlll a nee: rituals , festi va ls , services of a1l kinds, Céu'nival, circus perform ­
;lIlees, shows al a (~.irg round . story-te l1 ing, bailad si nging, conce r1 :;. sporls,
.U. 1I11es, and S() 011 . I n suc h c ult ural performanccs, C III!Uf'l' a l way ~ was (and is)
dc filll.:d anu rca lil.cd .IS pcrl"orll1utivc. Tha1 is nol 111 say 111.11 :lI ld; \I: ls are not
II sed or do Ilnl p l••y , . IlI'ollJ inenl rok Q ll i1l' 1111' l'l ll tl l,1I V in Ill illly c ll l1 ural
~; I
1'11(1- o U M i\ N (' 1; i\ R I i\ N I) IU I U i\ 1.
IK:rforma m:I.:S SO /lll' k ind 01" artcf~lcts are nceded , some are cven essential for
tk realization uf the pcrformance. Ilowevcr. they only function or are able
tu display their special power as e1ements 01' a performative process, and not
as artefacts. Therefore the use of artefacts in a cultural performance by no
means entails a reduction of its performativity.
Since cultural performances emphasizc the performative character of
culture, it seems wise to proceed from performances that reter in one \Vay 01'
another to a genre of cultural performance when embarking on an investi ga­
lion of theatre's contribution to the developmcnt of a nc\\' performative cul­
ture. In view of the great variety of possible genres of cultural performance~
rcferred to by performance artists, however, I shal1 restriet my explorati oll s
to performances which , in one way 01' another, have taken recourse to a
particularly basic genre, namcJy the performance of rituals.
2. Performillg ritual or tbe ritualization of performance?
SeCO/Id actüm 01 Nitsch's 'OI'XY my.\·te'T theatre'
The wal1s of the main room are covered in white hessian splashed with
paint , blood ami bloody water. on a meat hook, at the eod of a rope
hanging from the ceiling, hangs a slaughtered, bloody, skinned I<lmb
(head down). a white c10th is spread out on the gal1ery floor. beneath
the lamb , and on it lie lhe blood-soaked intestines. the lamb is swung
across the room. the wal1s, the floor and the spectators are splashed
\Vith blood. blood is poured out of buckets over the lamb 's innards
and the floor ofthe gal1ery. the actor tosses raw cggs against the wa l1.s
amI ont o the floor and chews a tea-rose. the bloody lambskin hangs
on the blood spattered hessian wal1. more blood is splashed over it. 6
Thc action lasted thirty minutes and was accompanied by music by the Greek
composer Logothetis: loud noises were created by the composer as he drovc
his hand , in rubbing and pressing ll1ovemcnts, over the tallt skin of a drum.
The action was perfo rmed by Hermann Nitsch on 16 March 1963 in the
J)vorak gal1ery in Vie nna. It \Vas his second 'action ' . Nitsch had trained as a
graphic dcsigner and developed the later so-cal1ed 'action art' by \Vay of
'action painting' , in \\'hich he poured red colour on a canvas in the presence
nI' onl oo kers . After initial attempts at concrete poeO'y and drama, Nitsch 's
second action already contains almost al1 the e1ements constitlltive of his
'()rgy M ystery Theatrc', which are constantly repeated regardless of whether
Ihe perfo rmahce lasb thirty minutes, fifteen hours (as his seventh action ,
\Vh i~ 1l look place 0 11 16 Ja n ua ry 1965 in Ilb a partment and stlldio) or six days
(as th \,; play planned ror lile Prill /A:nd o rf Scll lnB).
Al1 lhc c lclllc nts IIscd hy Nitsdl i" a 11l" t'urlllancc a re characterizcd by two
Illain f'ea lul cs. Iltcy aH' ¡¡JI h1l, ltl y 'iy ll11 tUlil' ;U! d IlIey provokc a strong sens ual
-" ti
 V 1 S U A LAR T A N 1) l' l' H H lt~ M " N ( ' 1, 1\ I( I ,.. In () R I\1,\ N c.· , AlU AN II R I, ' I I "I

inlpression , Nitsch himselfhas listeo a number of sy mbulal' a S:-;\l¡,; i:lli (l l\~ Ihal Illl: larllh sYlIIhnli/.cs l'hrisl alld his s;l¡,;rilice. Thcrel"orc , the Jamb ,
(' 111111 1(:.

can be presupposeo for any ofthe e1ements. Concerning the enlrails he spL'ó lics:
'slaughter house, sacreo killing, slaughter, animal sacrifkc. human sacrilic\!,
prilllÍtive sacrifice. hunt, wa r. surgical operation'. Amongst possibk sensual
irl1prl~ssions he mentions: 'blood-warm, blood-soa ked, mallea blc. resilicnt,
sllirtl~d lo bursting, to puncture, to crush, a strea m ofexcremen t, the intensive
ud ollr ofraw meat and excrement '. To tbe elernent 'bJood ' Nitsch assigns sym­
holic associations: 'red \Vine, Eucharist. tbe blood oC C hrist , sacri.ficc. human
~¡¡ u ilicc, animaJ sacrifiüe, slaughter, primitive sacrifice. sacred killing, Jife
illiccs'. and sensuaJ impressions: ' body-warm , warm from the sJaughter, blood­
" l;¡ ~Cd , wet , bright , blood-red Jiquid, to be spJattered, po ured, paodleo in,
~¡¡ l lIy tastc, wounding, killing, a white dress smeared with blood , menstrual
hllllld , thc stench ofblood'. With regaro to 'flesh' Nitsch names the following
syrllholic assocíations: ' bread , Eucharist, the transforrnation ol' bread in to
II ll' hody of Christ (flesh). sacrifice, animal sacrifice, human sac rifice, sacrcd
kilJillg, slaughter, wounding, killing. war, hunC. The corresponding sen sual
illlprcssions he cites are: 'body-warm, waml from the slaughter, blood-soaked,
\WI, n lW, bright blood red, malleable, resilient, the taste ofraw meat, wound­
illJ:¡, killing, the steneh orraw meat ,.7 The 'tea-rose', according to Nitsch , pro­
V()kes the symbolic associations 'erotic flower (Iust) , rosary (Madonna) , queen
()l"lhe Ilowers' and releases the sensual impressions 'seent oftea-roses, the taste
(JI" tca-rose petals, the voluptuous opulenee 01' tea-roses, the tea-rose stamen,
the pollen of the tea-rose'. s
It is striking that most of the symbolic associations Nitsch assigns to the
COl1stitutive elements of his actions point either to archaic/mythic or to
Christian/Catholic rituals. They are intended to operate as links between the
action/perforrnance taking place here and now (in the early I 960s) and cer­
tail1 kinds 01" ritual which still oporated in the context of Western culture (in
Vicl1na in the early I 960s) such as the rituals ol' the Catholic church or those
\Vhi~h we imagine as having taken place-or which stil1 do take place- in
;llh..:icnt Greece and other cultures, This does not necessarily imply that the
sPl'~talors shared the symbolie associations proposed by Nitsch. But, al
IItl' very least. we can assume that as members of the Viennese culture of the
I%()s. they disposed of a universe of discourse which was open to the possi b­
ilily ofsueh associations. 9
11] any case, not only the symbolic associations but also the sensual impres­
s inl1s were aceessible to pe rforrne rs and spectators alike. In Nitsch's actionsl
(1l.!rJ"ormances, the spectators were involved , evcn acted as perrormers. Thcy
WCl'e splashed with bload , excrement odish-water and other liquids a nd wera
.! ivl'1') the op po rtunity to do the splashing themselves. 1.0 g ut the lamb, to
·o n).¡ umc the meat and the wine.
'r he sens unl il11prcssio n:; a nd Ú1c symo()lic assw.:i;lli PIIS Iriggercd by the
d irf en:nl ch:rlll: lII S o rlhe perr~) rrllancc, h uw~'V\;, \\In,' lI, d.',,'d ;tlld stnrctu l"\!t.J
Ihl Cl lllc·h rc l~ rc r lt:c lo Olll: ¡(llmillil lll clerl1elll ' 11 11 1.1 111" 111 W.'/,Icrrl C (¡rist ian
as Ihl' f()ta l ccn ln: M almost ¡¡ II \ )1" Nitsch's pcrfi.mnances . opens up a dimen­
:>It>r l whieh strcJ1gthens the allusioll to C hristian rituals to which the possiblc
~y ll1h(llie aclions m¡J)' rcler. Nitseh labels it the ' mythicalleitrnotif of the orgy
lIlysh:ry thcutre (ll1ythical expression 01' the collective need to abreact) the
I ransformation ' .
co mmunion : T AKE, EAT, TI-lIS lS MY RO O Y. BROK EN F OR
YOU FOR Tri E RE MISSION OF SI NS ...
DRJNK YE ALL OF THIS, FOR THIS IS MY BtOOO OF T l-IE
NEW COV ENANT: SHEOFOR YOU ANO FOR MAN Y . ..
the crueillxion of jesus ehrist
the tearing apart 01' dionysus
the blinding 01' oedipus
ritual castration
the killing of orpheus
the killing of adonis
the castration of attis
ritual regieioe
kining ano eonsuming the totemic beast
the primitive excesses 01' sado-masochism
consuming l'ood : meat and wine in sumptuous measure 'O
The rituals to whieh Nitseh refers are scapegoat-rituals, exorcisms , c1eansing
and/or transforming rituals. Like a ll rituals they do not only signify a particu­
lar action, they al so perform it: the referential function indicated by the
symbols used in the process of ritual is c10sely linked to , even oominated by,
t he performative funetion . The ritual is able to aehieve the desired erfeet to
which the symbols (objects and/or actions) allude---as c1eansing the COT11­
ll1unity. healing an individual, transforming a group of individuals, and so
on . only because it is performed in a particular way.
By equating his performances \Vith ancient Greek und Catholic rituals the
artist c1ail1ls that by perfonning his actions he perforrns a particular kind of
ritual.
Such a c1aim seerns pro blema tic in m an y respeets, for it ignores basie
dilferenees bct ween ritual ::; tha t o p.:ra te wi thin a com m Ll nity and the actio ns
(lerrorl1lcd by the arti sl. W hen. lú r installce the Holy C ommunion to whieh
Nilsch rdeIs, is per l"ol'lncJ as a ¡ill lid litis p roceclure is cert ified as a ritual ,

1 \el , fl
 \ 1~ tí .\ I
h~'~',¡ 11 :,1.' ,111 ;1 11 t hl>1 i/( '11 pI.' 1S(l ll C'H'I.'III¡;~ 111 .: oIl lit I,,~ 111 ti pilrl icula r conlcx I a Il U
IIl1de l pa l lin tl ul cOlld rtil)l\S a ntl IlL'Ca uM: Ihe I.'lIl1glcga lion is cO l1 vi nccd lhal
he is l'l1lillcd l O perfllrml he aClions, 111 Ihis rc~rL'c l th ~ rilual is comparable t
a spcl.'l'h al't. It call11nly succceu when il is perro rmcd in a particula r space, al
1 rU1l Íl.:u lal lime, in a particular way by a person who is entitled lo pcrform il.
Ir SlllllCOI1C olher lhan Ihe priest sprinkles water 00 somebody's forehead and
IIlI e/ s lhe w(mls: 'Ego te baptisto in nomin e Pa tris et Fili el Spiritus Sancli',
lit' 11:Is by no Illcans performed a christening- at best , a joke, Benven iste
/lIakcs lhc po inl succinctly:
De loulc maniere, un énoncé pcrformatif n'a de réalité que s'il est
aul llcnlil ié comme ([cte. Hors des circonstances qui le rendent per­
/'PI/lJalir, un tel énoncé n'est plus rien, N ' importe qui peut crier sur la
place Pllbliq ue: 'le décrete la m obilisation générale.' Ne pOLlvant etre
,1, '1,' ralll\.' tle I'autorilé requise, un tel propos n'est plus que paro/e: il
'l' I(:Ju il ú une clameur inane, ent~lntillage ou démcnce . Un énoncé
111:/ 1i)l'IlIalir qui n 'est pas acte n'existe pas. 11 n'a d 'exis tence que
1 (1I 11111C aclL' d'autorilé. OL les actes d 'a utorité sont toujours et d'abo rd
d, 's 1.· II\H1cialions proférées pa r ceux ú qui appartient le droit de les
"lIollcc r. 11
I\ppl ll:J lo rilllals. it mean s that they will only work when performed by
01 11 ;1111 hori zcd persono Thus, s/he is pa rt 01' the particular framing which the
/1 111;11 IICCOS in ordcr lo succeed:
12
the fram e may indudc a particular occa ­
',IP II , place. time. setting, specific actions: in any case, it will be put up by
11(.' 1SO liS who are entitled to perform these actions. Therefore, when an artisl
111-. ..: N ilsch prodaims that he is performing a ritual by perrorming particular
adiulIs, Ihe qllcstion arises as to what entitles him to perfo rm a ritual­
whcl hc r in his ()wn eyes o r in the eyes of participants/spectators?
A llutlll'r lfllL'stion concerns the relati o nship between the performed actions
alld I hl,i,. pnssihle meanin g. I f we assumc that the action he performs sllcceedb
111 ~::lIIs ill g cxactly tha! effcct which it signifies, we have to explain how sign
:11111 sigllifkd Illerge. In the rituals to which Nitsch a lludes. this occurs either
11~'ca ll sc 01' lhe presence 01' di vine o r cosmie/magic forces/energy reJcascd by
Ihe r1ll1al. What, in Nitsch's performance, operates as a substitute for such
ii)1 ces? Wh<l l can iniliate the mergin g 01' signifier ami signified?
Bc r, lrc illVL'sligating these questions- a nd in order to broaden and strenglhen
I he g r()lInd from which to proceed- l will first briefly deseribe two other
pcrlÚr/llallL'L'S whidl , in one way or another, also rcfer to ritual: .Ioseph Beuy::;':;
aclio/l ('orole: II;!.-e AII'IN;ca ({/1(1 America likes 1/1(' wh ic h took place in May
Iwn i/l Ihe Rc nt! Block Gn lle ry in New York and Ma rina AbramoviCs
Pc/ I'n lllla IIce JI/(' /ifl.l' uf /'IIII II/(/.\' given ,, 1 I he K / iIl/ iJlfe l ga Ikry in In ns b rllck
iJl len). I! Bot " perlú rlll; lIIC;cs wc rc very dif'lí:Il.'1I 1 11111 11 N il sdl's perfo rmunce
as \Vd l ;IS 1n 1111 ,:ach oth e ,-. alld ho lh rdC/I\:d 111 ( 1111I d ItI Vl'IV dil '/¡;runl wa vs.
IX
1'1 In (11( 1\1 " N ( ' 1, ¡\ H 1 ¡\ N 11 1( 1 J' \J ¡\ 1.
( 'I /yl//e: //i/«' America olld Ame,.ica like:i me
Iku ys starleJ his action durin g the tli ght lo the United States, before even
rL'aching lhe American continent. Ile closed his eyes in order not to see any­
Ihing. Al l. F. Kennedy Airport, complelely wrapped up in felt, he was taken
lo lhe gallery by an ambulanee. He Ieft the sa me \Vay . During his seven-day
slay he did not see anything 01' America other than a lo ng, bright roOJ11 with
Ihree windows in the René Block Gallery- which he shared with a wild
coyote for a full week .
The room was divided by a wire screen which separated Beuys and the eoyote
rrom the spectators . At the far comer, stra\\' was put down for the coyote.
Beuys brou ght along wilh him two lon g fclt c1oths, a walking stick, glo vC!i, a
lorch and fift y issues of the Wa!1 Street ]our!1a! (to which , each day. lhe latest
issue was added). He presented them to the coyote to snitT at and urin ate on .
Beuys placed the two felt c10ths in the cenlre of the roo m. One he arranged
as a heap in which he hid the lit torch so that only its glow could be perceived .
The issucs of the Wall Street ]ouf/1al were piled up in t\\'o stacks behind the
wire screen to the front of the room. With the brown walking stick hooked
over his a rm , he approached the o ther felt c1 oth, put o n the gloves and
covered hiJ11self completely \Vith the felt ; all that could be seen \Vas the staff
slicking out. Beu ys created the image of a shepherd who underwent a series of
transformations thanks to the position of his staff: squatting down in an
upri ght positi o n, he hcld it up, swung it horizontall y, pointed it to the f100r.
In response to the m ovements of the coyote, the figure turned on its o wn ax is.
Then, unexpectedly it would drop sideways to the fl oor where il remained
stretched out. Then. all 01' a sudden Beuys would j ump up, letting the felt slip
down and hittin g the triangle which hung around his neek three times. W hen
the last sound had died away , he turned on a tape reco rder placed before thc
hars, so that for twenly seconds the noise of running turbines was heard .
When silence returned, he took off his gloves and threw them to the coyote
which maul ed them . Beuys went to the issues ofthe Wall Slreel ] ournal whieh
Ihe coyote had scattered and torn , and rearranged them into pi les. After­
wards he lay down o n the straw to smoke a cigarette. Whenever he did this,
Ihe coyole would move towards him .
Al other times, the coyote preferred to líe on the heap of felt. It looked in
lhe same direction as the li ght of lhe to rch and avoided a position where the
spcctators wOl/ld be behind its back. Often it restlessly paced the room, ran lO
a window ami sta red out. Then it would return to the papers and chew them ,
dra g thel1l lhrough the room or shil on them.
Tllc coyotc kepl a ccrtain dislance from the figure in telt. Occasion a lly it
l'irclcd hil1l snirli ng anu exciledl y jUl1lping at the slick , it bit the felt amI shred
il i"lo pil..'Ccs. W hcnl he fi g u rc lay slrl'l chcd o ut on the !loor lhecoyotc sniffed
alld rroddcd hl l11 . pawcu 01' sal do wlI bcsidc hil1l amI 1riel! lo cnrwl undc rl he
kll, M oslly, howcvc r. il sl ;I )'!!d .. \\1.1)' . 11 '\i Il)' th l: lig un: wil h ils cyes. O nl y
¡ -4i
 I " 1/ .\1 11 It I 11 N 1I l' I 1( j q, 11 ~ 1 \ N C • I ¡\ I~ I l ' H It! ' 11 101 11 N C. I
WI/l' lI Ik ll Ys SllIo kcd Ili s l:igalt.'1l1.' ,)11 Iltl.' "II. IW d ll.l il ap prom: h Irilll. Ila ving
IIIIISIIL'U bis clgarellc, Belly:; gol lo lIis lél'\. 11.'1I 11a ngw lite tell ami covcn.:u
lI ullsell agaill.
Whcll a wed had passcd, Beuys very slowly scallered lhe slraw all over lhe
roolll hu gged lile coyole good-bye amlleft the gallcry by lhe same route he
had a rrived .
111 co nl rasl lo N ilsch, Beuys mainly used everyday objel:ls- such as lhe
papcls, l~igarcllcs, lorch, slraw , felt, wal k ing stick , glovcs - and performed
cVl:rydayal:lions such as arranging Ihe papers, smoking a cigarctte, sw itch­
illg 011 a lape n:cordcr. Aceordingly, neither the objeets nor the actions implied
:tll y a llllsion whalsocver lo ritual. Moreover, it is diffleult, if not impossible,
1., asnihc lo Ihe objccls and actions symbolic associations shared by artist
allcl spcclalors. Ilowever, the elements were accorded a symbolic value b y lhe
;11'1 iSI, 1101 in lhe sense of flxcd symbols but of ' vehicles of experience, trans­
IlIilll'rs alld communicators [ ... l. They represent hidden el"fects and can be
IlIade cOllccivable and transparent. '/4
Th is is particularly true 01" the materials and objects. For instanee, Beuys
c·.la hlíshcd a rclationship between the possible implieations ofthe felt and hili
IOlrll\'!' actions when he sta tes: 'the way in which relt operates in my aetion,
\\' 1111 dOllble mcaning, as isolator and warmer, also extenos to imply isolation
1'1'1111 All1erica ano the provision of heat for the coyote' ./ 5 He used the loreh as
' illl agc 01' encrgy': 'First, the lorch houses Ihe energy in com:entration , then ,
Ihe cnergy disperses throughout the course 01' the day until the battery has
ItI IK~ renewcd. ' /6 The lorch was hidden in the felt beca use it was not to be
prl'sL'nled as a technieal object: ' It should be a source of light, a hearth , a
disappearing sun glowing out from under this grey heap.'/ 7The brown gloves
which Beuys threw to the coyote after each turn represented ' my hands [ ... ],
Ihc rreedom given mankind through the hands. They are free lo do all kinds
tlr IlIings, an inflnitc range of utensils are at their disposal .. . The hands are
IIlliwrsal. ' lx Beuys showed the manifold meanings of the bent walking stick
ror lhe (irst time in his action Eurasia (1965): it represented the streams
nI' cnergy lhat ftoat in EURASIA from east lo west and wcst to east. The
11'111/ Slrccl ]ounwl, on Lhe other hand , embodies ' lhe calcifieo death-starc 01'
<- 'A PITAL thinking (in Ihc sen se of being forced to capitulate to the power of
l110 ncy ano position) f .. . l Time is the measure 01' Ihe symptoms 01" the faot
Ihal C APITAL has long bcen the only artistic concept. That, too, is an aspcct
01' IIH; United States:/ 9 Even the two sounds produced in the performallces.
1he hitting 01' lhc triangle and the noise 01" the turbincs, were accorded sLlch
lIIl'anings. The noise 01' Ihe lurbines was ' lhe echo 01' the ruling technology :
l'lIl'I"gy which is never harnessed ', while the sOllnd 01' the triallgle is reminis­
CI.:1l1 nI' ' Ihe uní ly and Ihe one' ami is conccived 01' 'a s a slrcam or
co m;c;olls­
II CSS d irl'clcd a ll he coyo lc'.' tl
111 l ~rn l S ni N il sch's pe rformallce, 11It.' SYlllhllll~' .1'iSI1C iali.II1 S assigncd lQ
v;lIicll lS dl?lIl1:11l'< hy I he ar'lisl are nol I Wel' ~ ... IfI I't' ·,". I l~'d I,y his sflix la lnni ,
111
"11
"'t I ,\ NI) 1( II " " I
allhoug ll;1 ""111 (,1 CIIlIIlIlllllio11 was 1I11imaldy possible, since lhe clcmenls 01'
his pc rrOnnanCl' hclollg lo a general 1I1livcrsc of discourse. In Beuys's per­
forrnallce, this assul11ption cannol be madc. Ralher, it is Illost likely that lhc
Amcrican visitors did not share lhe associations suggesled by Reuys at all and ,
accordingly , made quite difl"erent associations when perceiving the objects.
However, therc are two aspects which overcome such objcctions and poin!
to Ihe special slatus of the performance. First, the objects were not linked to
lhe meanings explained by Beuys in the sensc 01' fixed symbol s. Rather thcy
were Ihought to be able to unfold and realize lheir potential meanings and
clTects only in Ihe context of the event thal constituted the performance: the
meeting 01' Beuys and the coyote.
Second , a eertain mythical dimension was ac¡;orded lo both partners.
Beuys designed and staged himself as a shepherd-like figure , alluding to Ihe
Good Shepherd, on one hand, and to a shaman, on the other- that is lo say,
to a figure which possesses di vine and/or cosmic/magic forces . As his partner
in the performance he chosc a coyote which represents one of the mightiest
Indian deities . The coyote is said to be b1essed with the power 01' tran sforma­
tion, able to move betwecn physical and spiritual states. The alTival of the
white man changed the status 01' the coyote. lts inventivcness and adaptabil­
ity admircd and revered by the Indians as subversive power \Vas denounced as
cunning by the white mano Thus, it became the ' mean coyote ' which could be
hunted and killeo as a scapegoat. Accordingly, Beuys's performance louched
on a ' traumatic momen!' 01' American history: ' We should settlc our score
with the coyote. Only then can this wound be healed .'2 1 Beuys undertook the
action in order to reach this goal. I t was performed as an 'energy dialoguc '12
between man and animal, aimed at triggering the spiritual forees necessary
for ' healing this wound' in the performer. He acted as a kind 01' shaman
who pcrforms a healing ritual that will save the eommunity by restoring the
destroyeo- cosmic- order.
Although the parlicipants/spectalors were not in a position lo share the
possible meanings accorded the objects by the performer it was assumed that
they would benefil from the shaman's actions as he conjurcd up or exorcized
the hioden potenlial meanin gs and effects of the objeels employed , thus
releasing the 'healing forces ', i.c ., the spiritual forees within himself which
enabled him to ael as a representative 01' a community---at least in his own
vie\\'. That is to say in terms 01' Beuys's performance. thc questions formlllated
abo ve bccome even more pressing.
The lips 01 T1lOnras
Thc lhird example radicaliLes ami , thus, brings into focus an aspect that was
simil a rly conslitu live or
the two other performances , namely the use and
lrl'allllcn l ur lhe perl'ormcr's bouy . In her perform a nce, 7he lips 01' Thomas ,
Marina Ah lall1l\v ié ahuseJ hel' ()wn hody I'\)r Iw() hours in variolls ways .
 V I S lJ ¡\ L ¡\ RT ¡\ N]) l' I ~ R 1" e111 M ¡\ N e l .\ It I
Abralllovié started by undressing total1y all ~ l l'WI ylllillJl. slle l/id Was pcr­
formed naked. She then sat down at atable CU Vc,;1 el! \Vil ha whil e dolh and sel
with a bottle of red wine. a glass of honey. a ~ rys lal glass, a silver spoon and
él whip. Slo\Vly she ate the honey with the silVl:r spoon , poured the red wine
into the crystal glass and drank it. Arter swaIJ owin g the wine, she broke the
crystal glass in her right hand , hurting hersell'. She got up, went to the back
wall where, at the beginning of the performance. she had fastened a picture 01'
herself and framed it by drawing a five-pointed star around it. She then took
a razor blade and cut a five-pointed star into the skin of her belly. T hen she
seized the whip. knelt down LIndel' her picturc, her back to the audience,
and started to llog herself violently on the baek . After this, she la)' down.
arms stretched out, on ice cubes laid out in a cross. A radiator hung from the
ceiling was directed towards her belly . Through its heat, the slashed wounds
of the star began to bleed copiously again. A bramovié remained on the cross
of iee for thirty min utes until some spectators spontaneously removed the ice
and thus broke off the performance.
No doubt, the most striking aspect of this performance was the self­
mutilation. However, the objects Marin a Abramovié employed in order to
execute the self-mutilation al so allow for a variety of symbolic associations.
The five-pointed star, for instance, may be interpreted in various mythic<ll ,
metaphysical, cultural-historical and political contexts (even as a fixed symbol
of a soeialist Yugoslavia). The same holds true for other objects: the whip
may point to Christian flagel1ants , to flogging as puni shment and torture or
to sadomasoehistic sexual practiees: the cross of ice may be related to the
crucifixion of Christ-·but also to icy prison cells or to winter a nd to death.
Eating a nd drinking at atable using a silver spoon and a crystal glass may be
perceived as an everyday action in a bourgeoi s surrounding but may equally
allude to the Last Supper.
Whate"er symbolic associations were triggered by lhe objects, they were
not caused by objects in isolation- the objeets as such--but because they
were used as instruments of self-mutilation. The actions which Marina
Abramovié performed with these objects structured the performance in a way
that its similarity to a scapegoat ritual (or a ritual of initiation), in which the
performer played the victim, became obvious. By undergoing a series of cleady
perceivable physical transformations such as the intake of certain substances,
mutila tions by the incision 01' the star, flogging , bleeding a nd freezing, in
short, by undergoing such an ordeal, the naked performer acquired a new
identity . Neme the less , it is difficult to classify the perfonnance as a ritual ­
either a scapcgoat ritual or a rite of initiation , for such rites not only sup­
pose a eonsensus a mong members of a comm unity concerning the sym bolic
meaning of the objeets cmployeu but such violation ::; and m uti la lions­
conceived of as con stitutive elements Qf the ri te are us uall y innictcd 00 lhe
victim by melllbers 01' lile comrn ulli ly empowercd SI) 111 dll. l/cre, it Wél~ lhe
"1"
\'1:'
.'. 1( . CI J{ ~. ,\ N ( . ... :\ lt I ¡\ N . ) IU. 11:\ I
perflll mlT wlto 111 Ulckd lhe pa in 011 hersclr a nd lhe speclalors were the onc.s
lo end lhe onlea l by rell10v ing lhe ice.
As in lhe case 01' the per form a nces by Nitsch and Be uys. though in other
rcspccls very difTerent , Abramov ié's performance alluded to a particular
genre 01' ritual without actualIy realizing it.
AIl these artis1s introduced or used ritual structures in their performances.
They followed, for instance, the three phases of a rite identified by van
(¡ennep.21 They started with a clearly marked separation phase: Nitsch, by
arranging the environment and by puttin g on a white garment: Beuys, by
lctting himself be wrapped in relt at the airpo rt; Ab ramovié, by setting the
cnvironment and by undressing. The actions described aboye constitute
the transformation phase. The final incorporati on phasc was indicated by the
shared meal at the end of Nitseh's ritual/performance, by the wrapping up 01'
lhefi gure in Beuys's, and by the spontaneous actions 01' some spectators in
Abramovi é's performance.
It does appear that the structure and the process of these three perform­
linces de rive from rituals. I hesitate, however, to class them as rituals despite
lhe claims and interpretations of the artists themsel vcs, as my initial q uestion
remains unanswered: ' What entitles an artist to perform a ritual not onl y in
his/her own eyes but also in the judgement of the other participants, namely,
lhe spectators'?'
3. The body in performance
In eaeh of the performances which 1 have described, the artist used her/his
body in a striking manner. Nitsch polluted his body with blood a nd excremcnt;
he put his hands deep into the entrails of the lamb and thus , allllost IitcralIy,
carried out the lamb 's disembowcfment himsclf. He exposed his body to
various sensations through contact with blood, wine, paint, di sh -water, m ine,
excrement; and he inflictcd violcnce on the carcass of the lamb with his own
hands . Nitsch' s body was the locus of performance. By using differe nt ma­
tcrials and objects, he not only changed them but also transforllled hi s own
body .
In Beuys's perfo rmance the performer's body obviously served a different
purpo se. By living in the company 01' a wild coyote for seven days and nights,
Beuys crcated a particular situation. On the one hand , he exposed hi s body to
Ihe risk of bcing attacked , bitten or perilously hurt by the coyote. On the
other, he cmployed his body to cOlllmunicate with the animal. The energy 01'
lhis ·dialogue' proceeded from and was received by his body. The spiritual
forces which were mean1 to bring about the ' healing' were to be releascd in
alld oul orhis bod y. A no this blldy, in turn. did n01 rcmain unchanged alllidst
alll hese risks and dan g~ rs cv~n ir i! was ulli lll a lcl y unh armed . T hc sevcn days
aml nigills shareu wil h Ihe COyotl' Id'! !hl'ir illlrrin l.
 y t S tJ,\ t. i\ It '1 i\ N /)1' IlIt H )I{ M:\ N t . 1, ¡\ IU
A h !. I II " )\i( ahu:i('d 11,')" hlldy, lilcral ly l'Il! illlo IIcr OWII fksh , intlicled injuries
PII il Ihal I.:l\uscd pain alld lel'l lasl ing lraces. Bul shc did nol a rticulate her
pains by scn:am ing . Sh\: simply pcrform eJ sell'-mutila ting actions and pre­
sl:ntl'tl hc r blccding, sufl'cring body to the speetalors. She exposed the process
(11' hurl and its visible traces, but not hc r pain- this hall to be sensed by the
spcctalors. But obviousl y this sense bccame so strong and unbcarablc that
Ilwy interfercd and put an end lO the pc rformer's tortures.
111 these actions the performers put their bodics a t risk lhrough trans­
{úrlllations, thrcats ami injuries which Iegitimized the performance. Since thc
p CI formcr put her/his body in danger, the construction ofher/his own '[¡ction' -­
l he ll1ythical dismemberment 01' a god , t he dialog ue with a coyote, the acqui­
sltillll 01' a ncw identity- was substantiatcd and , in this sense, transformed
inlll 'n:ality'. It was preciscly the dctiled , endangered , violated body that
l'lIlilkd the performer to perform such actions as {('the performance were a
1 il ua 1.
r his condition c1carly marks thc principal difference between an acknow­
h.:d!'\fd ritual and an artist's performance. TraJitional rituals originate in col­
h.:t: 1ivc constructions . such as myths, legends and other traditions; to pcrform
a rilual is to re-substantiate them and to reaffirm their effects. The artist's
pcrl'ormances, on the contrary, proceed from subjective constructions. Bere,
il is only the defiled body of the artist, the endangered and still unharmed
hndy , the boJy in pain , which is able to substantiate these constructions for
thc spcctators. The perfo rrncrs' acting and suffering bodies , thus, gain the
power 01' evidence of proof in the eyes of the spectators.
Ilowcver, the spectators do not participate in a ritual as do the members
01' a Catholic congregation at Holy Communion, 01' the participants at a
shamanist Jemon exorcismo For even if the particular use of the body may
substantiate the performer's subjeetive constructions in the cyes of the spec­
t:ltors , it does not follow that they will ' believe ' in these constructions, i.e.,
Ihal they will be convinced that they are participating in the dismemberment
uf a god , in the healing of America's traumatic wound. in the birth of a ne w
itkntity, 01' a sacrifice. At best , they wilI sense 01' even believe that the artis t's
lis\! 01' Ihc body manifests and reveals a new attitude towards the body: lhe
attitllde 01' 'being my bod y' instead of only having it, as Plessner put it. 24
Lwn if the particular use of the body Joes not entitle the artist to perform
rilllal or transform the performance into ritual , it endows the human body
witll values long sin\:c forgotten and ignored in wcstern culture ·va llles tha!,
al othcr times 01' in other cultures, were realizcd when such rituals were
pt'l"formed as those lo which the artist's performance alludes.
I f \Ve condude that the artist does not pc rfo rnl ritual, what ha ppens to the
rdal iollship net wcell the actions perforln cJ und/uJ' 1111: l1 biccts lJsed a mi t he ir
p()s~ i hlc rnca nings, lO lhe rclation sh ip bctwcclI 1111.: sl !' lIil icr s 1I 1lJ lhe s ig ni fi eJ ?
I:i rsl. Ih\! ,> p..:cl all lrs pe rt'civc how t h~ a rtisl~ !1('I I() llIllhl ¡1I.;l ioIlS : po u ri ng
hluqd un a wh" c \: aI1 VllS , k aring IlI c l'lI l l1l1 l , 11 11 11\ l!r t' l ' al l'a ~s (Ir a lalll h .
" 111
"Lo
l' l · lt H)J{ M ,\ N (' F ¡\ It I i\ N " IU I I J ¡\ 1.
wrappin g him sdl' in a long kit doth, arranging papcrs, ~ mokillg a cigarettc.
drinkin g rcd WiIlC, clltting a fivc-poil1tcd star into her belly , ami so on. And
sincc the ar tists perform these actiolls not only themselves but as themsclves,
in their own name (not in ordcr to represent actions 01' a given stage persona)
Ihe spcctators will ascribe to thcm these obvious meanings: Nitsch tears
entrails from a lamb's carcass, Bcuys wraps hjmself into felt , Abramovié
cuts a five-pointed star into the skin ofher belly. In this sense one could state
a Illomentary merging of signifier and signified. Hut all these actions and
objects cOl1tain an abundance of possibilities which trigger symbolic associ­
ations depending on the universe of diSCDurse of each spectator. This sema ntic
accretion prevents simple merging of signifler and signified . However , the
performance does not structure lhe process of perception and meaning con­
slitution in such a way that any symbolic associations are emphasizeJ and
foregrounded. Therefore the semantic accretion may result in a similar pro­
cess as the merging: it may draw the speetator's attention away from possible
meanings of a gesture- that may mean anything- and focus on Íts materiality.
back to the body of the performcr. Such focus , at the same time, emphasizes
that the action causes certain cffects on the performer's body. When Nitsch
tears the entrails from the lamb ' s carcass he is tainted by them ; when Beuys
wraps his body in rclt , he makes it disappear ami creates a particular image;
when Abramovié engraves a five-pointed star in her belly , it bleeds . Thus,
despite the semantic accretion. the semantic dimension is devalllated as seco nd ­
ury , The spectator's attention , in this case, is not directed towards a po ssible
meanin g, but focuses first on the physical execution of an action , then on the
effect it has on the performer's body.
While participants in a rituai may take recourse to the collective constru c­
tion which enables them to assume that by performing the ritual exactly only
¡hose actions are caused which it signifies- the transformation ora wafer into
Christ's body , the exorcism of the demon--because the merging 01' signifler
ami signified is based on collective construction, in the artis1's performance
they fall apart. Though the subjective construction may be substantiated in
the eyes ofa spectator becallse ofthe particular use ofthe body, none the Iess,
the spectator will be able to relate signifier and signified to each other without
considering this construction. The divine/cosmiclmagic forces which the col­
Icdive construction presupposes and whose working the 'corred perform­
ance 01' the ritual will guarantee, are replaced in the artist 's performance by
hcr/his individual demonstration or her/his being a body and not only having
a body (as the common basis of human culture) ami the spectator's individual
n:sponsc to it be it particular sensations , emotions, reflections 01' even the
cxccution 01' certa in acti ons (as in Nitsch ' s performance) or in preventing the
perl',wme r fr o m co nti n uing he r ac tio ns.
T hu s, Ihe pe lf onner 's b~)Jy, in ma ny rcs pc¡;ls, ap pears lo be the basic con­
di tio n rM Ihi! ':¡ucccss' of lhe pCII IlIIII:III CC. Th..: risks Laken a nJ Ihe inj uries
su bslanlialt: 11 1t: al li s l's '>lI h jcc liw ~'I \II s tl Ill'li llll in Ihe e yes nI' the spcctators
 V r ~:I)¡\ 1 Ar( 1 J\NI' 1' i1 ll1 r.,j(I\I ! \N ' l ' Alt I
ami , in Ihis W¡¡y , k g it ima lL' hn/llIs PL'lltll lll ,lIll.:t' 11 is Ihl: al t i~ l's physicrl
actioll which lriggcrs scnsaliolls, CIlHlliollS ,urd illlplllsl:~ ill lhe spcclalors lo
<lct thcll1selves and which initiares rcflcctions which will allow thcll1 lo have
the experience 01' bci ng a body, not only having él body.
The reception process is characterizecl by features that are eommon to any
process oftheatrical communication and clearly distinguish it fro m reception
processes in other art forms, which di spose of artefacts. An artefact allows
the recipient to attribute ever new meanings to its vario LIS elements, to their
combination and to the structure as a wholc: and, whatever the meanings
may be, it is possible for others to check them by direct reference to the
artefact. In a performance, howcver, the process 01' meaning production in
which a recipient may accord certain meanings to the actions of the per­
former is looscly connected to the fleeting moment oftheir physical execution
by lhe performer. Any modification or revision 01' th e meaning constituted
during the performance can no longer refer to the actions themselves nor are
others able to refer to them in order to cheek the meaning conveyed to them
by a participant. AII modifications, revisions and discussions will necessarily
refer to the memory ofthe participants, i.e., any process ofmeaning constitu­
tion taken up 01' continued after the performance is over will be performed as
a process 01' recoHeetion. The subjective eonstruction which the performer
tends to substantiate through the performance is thus brought ¡nto relation
to and followed by the various subjective constructions which the spectators
articulate as they recall the performance. For them, the only point of refer­
ence is their own memory engraved in their own bodies.
Thus, we can conclude that the artist's individual transformation of the
genre ' ritua l' as realized in the performance has eonsiderably shifted the cul­
tural focus. It brings baek into view an insight which has long been forgotten
amI repressed in western culture·- even if never complctely: that the basis of
any cultural production is the human bodl 5 and that this body creates
culture by performing actions. Here , the focus does not centre on artcfacts
created by sLlch actions privi1cged by western culture in general and the
humanities in particular; rather, attention is attracted to the very moment at
which the actions are performed.
This moment, in its ephemeral presence, is accorded a time dimension
beca use of its reference to subjective constructions. It is preceded by the sub­
jective construction 01' the artist \Vho has designed the actions, and it ftows
into the subjective construction 01' the spectators who later, in the process 01'
recoI1ection , attribute ditTerent meanings to them. While during the perform­
ance, for a fleeting moment, signifier amI signified seem to merge, before amI
al'ter it, in the subjective con structions 01' the performcrs amI thc spectators.
they irretricva bl y fa ll apart. In this respect, one migh l evcn discover a poten­
lial utopi a ilJ lh e: perfo rma nce.
T hus, rhysü'::11 r l.lrrUnnalH.:e and its rc:co lkcl hm ;lp]'lclI r tn Oc Ihe ]'lri llcipal
Il\l ll.lI.:S ok ult ur~iI pnld 11('1 iun alld i I is ollly I h~ 1I 1C1111~' 1 11 ,,1 phYHit'al pcrrormanCt;
' ·1(;
l' I It 1, e 1I( ~, ¡\ NI ' P :\ It r :\ N 11' IU 1 1 I t\ I
Ihal is end nwcd wlllI lhe power to Lran SrOrlll subjective construl'lion into
sl'lIsllally pe l'l.:ci vab1e realizations which, in turn, become the point 01' depa r­
ture ror other subjective constructions. However, a theory 01' culture that
would proceed from the moment of performance, taking this as its pivot, is
still to be developed.
Regarding the process of reception, the artists' performances described
here fund amenta lly question lhe lraditional concept 01' aesthetic distance. When
the spectators' bodies are splashed with blood, when the audience bccomes
cyewitness to actions by \Vhich the artist exposes her/his body to risks amI
infticts on it severe injuries, how wiIl they be ablc to kecp an aesthetic dis­
tance? In such performances, is it stilI valid to hold aesthetic di stance as the
'adeq uate' attitude of reception? A theory of aesthetic perception taking into
consideration the body in pain has stil1 to be developed. For it is highly
q uestionable as to whether the aeslhetics of the sublime al ready deal \Vith this
aspect satisfactorily . And such a thcory seems al1 the more desirabl e, since
theatre, fmm the 1960s and I970s, incrcasingly employs the performer 's body
in a \Vay which literalIy puts it at risk and violates it, whether in the perform­
ance of individual artists or of thcatre groups.
In the 1960s and 1970s the Viennesc artist Rudolf Schwarzkogler, for
instance, abused his body \Vith cables a mI bandages (1960); Ch ris Burden had
himself locked up in a locker measuring 2' x 2' x :r for five days, nourished
only fmm a water bottle placed in a locker above (1971); in the same year, in
a performance entitled Shooting Piece, Burden was shot tbrough Ir is left arm
by his friend ; Gina Pane was cut on the back , lace and hands and , Iying on an
iron bed , scorched and burned her body by candles placed underneath .26 In
the 1990s, Sieglinde KalInbach \Valked on fire and trickled hot wax onto her
skin ;27 in The Reincarnalio/l 01 [he Ho /y Orlal7, 2~ the french performance
anist Orlan, underwent cosmetic surgery to shape her face according to a
computer-synthesized ideal that combined the features of women in famoLls
paintings- such as BoticeIli 's Venus, Leonardo's Mona Lisa, Boucher's
Europe, Diane from the Fontainebleau sch ool, Géróme's Psyché. The opera­
tion was directly tran smitted from th e surgical theatre to a New York gallery.
Since the 1980s, performers increasingly use the bod y in violent ways , both
in dance amI theatre groups. Injuries and pains are infticted on the per­
rormer's bodies as, for instance, in the theatres of Jan Fabre, Einar Schleef,
Reza Abdoh, Lalala lIuman Steps or Fuera deIs Baus. In productions of
Ilany K upfer, Frank Castorf, Leander Haussmann amI others, singers amI
actors are thrown about a mI made to fall dangerously.
Ir the elld a ngercd , scorched , pierced o r otherwise injured body is th e focus
nI' attention, the quest.iQn arises as to how this affects aesthetic perception.
As Ua ine Scan'y has sh()wn, pain C<lnnot be cOlTllTlunicated:
S(), rol' Ihe ren;~Hl in pai n. SI' illn 1ll k Nt;¡ hly Ull d lI nncgot iahly pn:sent
is il tha l ' lIavin)'. pain' lllilY ~'lm , (.' 1\1 h\: 111 1111 )'.l1 t oras Ihe 1l1 ()s l vihranl
1'1
 \ ' I :-dll\l 1\ le 1 ¡\NI~ 1' I I IU ! t)lcM"NC 'I'. ,, (( I
cxam plc ofwhal il i:- 'lo haví: í:í:rtailll y' , \Vhilc l'or ll'll~ olhí:r pcrsnn it
is so elllsivc thal 'hearing abolll pain ' may CXiiil as Ihe pn m ary moJe l
of what it is ' to ha ve dOllbl'. Thus pain comes unsharab ly inlo our
midst as at once thal which cannot be d enied and tha l w hich cannOI
be confirmed .2~
To perceive pain can onlymean to perceive one's own pain, never the pain 01'
another. The spectators perceive the action by which lhe performer hurts
her/himself but nol the pain whicb s/he suffers. They are only in a position
to assume that s/he feels pain. Thus, a kind of pa rad oxjcal situation presents
itself. The fteeting instant at whieh an action is pcrformed and, thus, signifi er
and signified seem to merge, is experienced by the spectator at lhe very moment
when perception and meaning fall apart and the signified irretrievably separ­
ates from the signifier. While the action 01' hurting herlhimself is perceived,
the pain which it causes can only be imagined. A gap opens up for the spectator
between what is pcrformed 011 the performer's body, and what happens ;/1 the
performcr's body, a gap that seems to be bridgeable only by way 01' imagina­
tion. While the performer makes her/his body the scene ofviolent actions, the
spectator is forced to move the scene into her/his imagination.
The 'real presence' ofperformance is questioned not only by the subjective
constructions of the artists and the spectators, but also by the performer's
pain. For her/his pain can only gain presence for the spectators in their own
imaginations and not in the performance 01' the action by which the performer
hurts her/himself.
Thus, the perfomlance, in a way, turns into a scapegoat ritual. The performer
exposes her/his body to risks and injuries against which the spectators aim to
protect their bodies; the performer causes herlhimself the pRins which lhe
spectators seek to avoid . The performer, in this sense, suffers in place of the
spectators. S/he saves lhem from their own physical sulTering. The ' sacrificial
victim' at the torment and death of a martyr, or even at the exccution 01' a
repentant Christian up to the eighteenth century, held 'a magic power' and
the onlookers ho ped for ' the healing of certain diseases and similar miracles'
from the tortured o r execllted sinner , from 'his blood , his Iimbs or the rope' .llJ
WhiJe here it was the tortllred and violated body of the sinner that seemed to
promise and to guarantee the onlookers' own physical integrity, in the artists'
performance, it is the imagination of the spectator which replaces the magie.
Their imagination 'saves' them from the anxieties ofviolence and pain direeted
towards their own body by imagining the performer's pain and by attempting
to sympathize with it and to sense it themselves.
The aesthetic perception, thus initialed, triggered and provoked by Ihe
per formance ean hardly be described as 'disi nlcrcsled pleasurc'. On the one
ha nd, lile spectators fcel shocked a nu deny whal they sce; o n the other, Ihcy
are fascinated beca use someone viola tes h im/hefsd l' vll llllllaril y and bcc ulL.~c
Ihe aclion conjllres IIp labnos nr lorl u.n: ;J OU phYSll'lIll' lIl1 ishlllcn t. ~rCdtltllrs
11\
" " 11 I "IU\1 ¡\ N e ' 11 "lt 1 1\ N JI It 1 I I J 1\ 1
: II C fascillatl.!d ;11111 s!Joekcd by lhcir OW Il L'lIIillsit y sinec. accordin g lo L'lJllllral
lIorms, Ihey S!Jllllld tCd disgusl o r hurror. Il is Ihis ulllbiguily in Ihl~ rcccplion
prll\.;ess lo which the performam;e arlisl Rachel Rosenlhal refers: 'In per­
fornlél11ce art, lhe audienee, from its role as sadist, subtly becomes Ihe victim.
Il is forced to e11dure lhe artist's plight empathetically. or examine its OW11
responses 01' voyeurism and pleasure , o r smugness anel superiority. [ ... ] In
any case, the performer holds Ihe reins. [ ... ] The audience usually 'gives up ,
before the artist. ' 11 Here, aesthetie perception may be described as a kind 01'
perception which transfonns the spectators into involved participants ando in
this sense. into performers themselves by projecting the scene of the body
onto the scene ofthe imagination- an imagination which, however, is tied to
the body , or is even part 01' the body, i.e., a physical imagination that causes
physical sensations. Therefore, the spectators usually 'give up' before the
performer; Iheir imaginations have replaced lhe performer's body with their
own and, thus, penetrated into the realm oflhe incommunicable- to the pain
of the other, which, 110W becomes manifesl in a physical sensation, a physical
impulse, in a physical response in the spectators.
As van Gennep has ShOW11, rituals work in a community in order to secure
a safe passage from a given status to a new one at moments of life or social
crisis in an individual (such as birth , puberty, marriage, pregnancy, illness,
changes in professional positions, death). The performances created by indi­
vidual artists over the last thirty years alluding to or transforming rituals seek
lo secure and accelerate the passage of Western culture from lhe state of a
prevailingly material culture lo a new performative culture. This passage is
also to be understood as a passage from the given order of knowledge, the
given sign-concept, as well as semiotic processes, towards a new, yet unde­
Ilned order of knowledge. The performances, thus, operate as the signature 01'
a time of transition.
Notes
John Cage, quoteo in Roselee Goloberg, Perjiml1ol1ce ArI, Prom FUlur;sm lO lile
Presenl (New York: Harry Abraham, Inc., Publishers, 1988), p. 176.
2 Rauschenberg's oog barkeo louoly throughout the performance, running after
anyone moving in the hall. l~he oog hao been a ve!:y popular performer in the nine­
teenth cenlury, but not lO everyone's laste. Rumour has it that Goethe resigned his
direclorship at the Weimar Court Theatre becaúse in f)a llund Fon Allhry él hve
dog \Vas desecrating lhe holiness (JI' the stage.
:~ Richard Wagner. Gesol11l11elle Sc/¡rrfien lIIul f);cltlungen , I- IX , Vol. IV (Leipzig:
E. W. Fritzseh, 1887/8: 2nd edition), p. J.
4 M ilton Singer, ed., Trad;lio//olln(/;o: Slruclure Ilnd C/¡ol1ge (Philadelphia: Amer­
ican Folklore Society, 1959), p. xii.
5 [bid. p. xii fT.
(, He rlllalln Nitseh, /)e/l' O rg;I'/1 Mysl,.,.;c/I n/mler. f);c Porliluren al/a oul~('fi:ihrlen
kl;(lI/('/I/W)(i 1')(1). I':rst llr Balld, l . .t!, Ak linll. (Ne;l pe Il M ünchen/ W ien : Editioll
Frc ihol',l.'" 11)71)). p. 50.
1 1'1
 V IS, I A I A I( I 1\ N 11 1'1 It H lit M A N ( ' h A I( I

7 I krnwnll Nitsl:h, 'I>il: Rcalisatioll \f\:sO. M. I'hca tcrs ' ( !In'l). In I krmann Nits('\¡ ,
Das Orgicl1 Mvslaiel/ 'I'I/I·lIlel'. Malli/<'sll'. i/llf.i'iil:::e. Vol'/rüge (Salzburg/ W kll:
Residcnz- Verlag. 1990), pp. 67- 107 & pp. 1(J] Ir 80
8 Ibid. pp. 105 fL
9 This is not the place to inves~igate lhe special trauitions on which Nit~ch tlraws
- in particular the Viermese tradition. Concerning this question, ~ec Ekke hard WOMEN'S PERFO R MANCE ART

Stiirk , Hcnnwl/1 Nilsch, Dos Orgien j\;/y sleriel/ Thealer um} die H ysterie del' Griec/¡m.
Quellen L/lid ]i-aelil iOl1en ZUlI/ ~Viener A I/Iikenhilel.l'eil /850 (M ünchen : F ink- Ver lag , Feminism and postmodernism

1987).
I (J Das Or¡;iel/ M y slerien- Thcaler, p. 87.

11 Émile Benveniste, Prob/emes ele lín¡;ui.l'/ique genem/e (París: Gallimaru 1966),

p. 273: 'In ally case, a perforrnative stalemcnt can only aehie ve reality w hen it is Jeanie Forle
conllrmed as an al:tion. Out sidc the Circumstances w hieh rnake il performa tive,
such a statcment is nothíng more than a mcre stat\jlll ent. Anyonc can cal! out in
thc rnarkd square, ' 1 decl a re general rnob ilization'. But this statement eannot
Sourcc: Thealre ]olll'l/al 40(2) (19););): 2 17- 235.
beco me action because it lal:ks authority, ít is just speech: it is limited to an empty
shout, childishness, or madness. A perforrnat,ive statcment without al:ti on l:annot
exist. An authoritative adion wili! always bc derived from sta tements made by
those who ll ave the right to exprcss thern.'
12 Conl:erning thc l:oncept 01' frarne , sel: Gregory Bateson , 'A theory of play and
rantasy; a report on theoretical aspects of thc project for st ud y 01' thc role of para­
doxes ofa bstracti o n in cornmunication ' , in: APA Psycl/ialric R eseorc/¡ RqiOrts 11, Limiting one's critical focus to a particular group of performance artists or
1955). their performances has always seemed inappropriate, sinec that project would
13 Marina Abramovié is Yugoslav. But it would restrict her perfomlance to , take it appear to perpetrate the very act of denning and categorizing that anything
as a staternent about Yugoslavia. called performance art actively resists. Neverthelcss, the overtly pQlitieal
14 Josep h Beuys, in Caro lin Tisdal!. .!o.\'eph Beuys Coyole. 3rd edition , 1988 (M linchen ,
nature of much women's performance art since the 1960s has invited just
Arst pub1ished in 1976), p. 13 . (My description of the perfonnance follows the
description given by Tisdal+l). such a critical distinction , treating feminist performance as a rccognizable
15 QlIoted in TisdaIl , p. 14. sub-genre within the field. Through the len s 01' post-modern feminist theory,
16 Ibid . women's performance art (whether overtly so or not) appears as inh erently
17 [bid. p. 15. political. AII women's performances are derived from the relationship of
18 Ibid . p. 15 ff.
women to the dominant system of representation, situating them within a
19 (bid. p. 16.
20 'bid . p. 15. leminist critiq uc. Their disruption of the dominant systcm constitutes a sub­
21 Ci tedin Tisdal! , p. 1(J. versive and radical strategy of intervention vis ú vis patriarchal culture. The
22 Tisdall , p. 13. implications of this strategy may be understood through readings of feminist
23 Arnold van Gennep , T/¡e Riles o/ Pas.\'age, trolllslated by Monika Vizedom and theory-- cspecially in relation to performance during the 1970s. Whether or
Ga brielle Caffee (Cllicago: LJniversity 01' Chicago P re ss, 1960).
not such considerations must change for the 1980s is taken up at the end 01'
24 Scc Helm uth Plessncr, Alllhrop%gie del' Sil1/1e. Gesarnmelle Sc/¡rifien in drei
Biindl! l1 (Frankfllrt am Main , 1980), and He lmuth P1essner, Laughing al/(I Crying. thc essay,
A Sll/dy oIlhe limil.\' o/ Hunwl/ Bl!haviour (Evanston , IL: Northwcstern lJniversity Arguably all performancc art, particularly in the earlier years, evidenced a
Prcss, 1941 , reprint 1970). deeonstructive intent. As the manifestation of a burgeoning postmodernist
25 See also Thomas J . Csordas, ed., Emhodil1lel1l CJl1d Experie/lce. Tlle Exislelllia/ sensibility, the violent acts of Chris Burdcn or the enigmatic exercises ol'
Groul1d oI Cullllre (11/(1 Se(/'(Carn bridge: Cambridge lJ niversity Press, 1994).
Vito Acconci cast into relief the problema tic relationship between lite and
26 Tlle CO/7{liliol1ing, Part ( of ' Auto-Portrait ' 1972.
27 Frankfurt am Maiu, 1991. art, between a Rcnaissance conception of self ami a postmodern subject
28 New York, 1990 ff. constructcd by cultural practices. Performance art made understanding (in
29 Elaine Scarry , The Boc(v in Pain: T/¡e Makillg (//1(/ Un-Making oIlhe Wor!d (N cw any con venti onal sen se) difflcult, critical analysis frustrating, and absolute
Yo rk: Oxford University Prcss, 1985), p. 4. definitian impossible, As a co nti lluat io n 01' the twcntieth-<:en tury rebellion
30 R ichard von D ülmen , Theal er de.\' S cI/reckel1.1'. Geric/¡ I.\prax is ul1d Slr([(rilua/e in

agai nst C0111 111odili ca tio n, pc r['nrm;r nec al t promiscd a radical de parture from
del'/i-ühen N eu::eil (M ünchen: Bcck P lIblishing [[ ouse. ]\)RR, 3rd ed.), p. 163.

] 1 Rache! Rosenthal , ' Performance ami the M asoc hist J' radili()!l'. In : Nigh Per(imll­
;omlllc n:ia lislll , ",ssilll il a lil'l1, ;llId Iriv ia lil y. dCl:Ollslructing lhe cOlllmercial art
al/ce (W inter 198 1/2\, p. 24. nClwork ~)r u" ll ~r il!s ;'Ind 11111 5(.: 11111 :·, wlll l\: ,,1'1\'1\ IIsi llgl,dlll sin ~ lheir SIJ<Il:C,';. In él

:"0
' '' 1
 VISU A l AI~ r ANI) I'FtnIlRMA N('F Al{ r
very real sense, it is thc strudurcs a mi instituti o ns 01' modernism which
performance art attacks, throwing into d o ubt the acceptcu p ractices 01' kn ow­
ledge acquisition anu accumulation.
Within this movement, women's performance emerges as a specific strategy
that allies postmodernism and feminism , adding the critiq ue 01' gender/patri­
archy to the already damaging critique ofmodernism inherent in the activity.
In the late I 960s and early 1970s, coi ncident with th e women's movemen t,
\\lomen used performance as a deconstruc tive strategy to demon Slra te the
objectification 01' women and its results. In "Waiting" (1972), Faith Wilding
rocked slowly ÍJl a chair, quietly listing item after item for which she waits as
"woman," from childhood to old age:
Waiting for someone to pick me up I Waiting for someone to hold
me . .. I Wa iting to be somebody I W aiting to wear makeup I Wa it­
ing for my pimples to go away ... Waiting for my ch ildren to come
home rrom schooll Waiting for them to grow up, to lcave home I
Waiting to be myselr I Waiting ror excitement .. . Waiting for my
ftesh to sag I Waiting for the pain to go away I Wa iting for the
struggle to end I Waiting for release l .
Wilding eloquently expressed the frustration 01' a woman rendered incap­
able of independent action 01' thought. rorced to wait for her life to happen to
her. Always "waiting to be myself," Wilding's monologue shares with her
a udience the specific status of the objectified, the fceling of selflessness when
constructed and delineated by male-dominated society. Initially performed
for an audience 01' women only, the performance also served as a kind of
consciousness-raising, feeding the group's awareness orthe subtlc \Vays in which
women are denied an active role in the constructed path of their own lives.
As a dccon structive stratcgy, women' s performance art is a discourse ofthe
objectified othcr, within a context which foregrounds the conventions and
expectations ofmodernism. This decon struction hin ges on the awareness that
" Woman ," as object, as a cu lturally constructed category, is actllally the basi s
of the Western system of representa tion. Woman eonstitutes the position 01'
object, a position of other in relation to a socially-dominant male subject; it
is that "otherness" which makcs representation possible (the personification
of male desire). Prccisely beca use of the operation of representation , actual
women are rendered an absence within the dominant culture, and in order to
speak , must either take on a mask (masculinity, falsity , simulation, seduc­
tion), or take on the unmasking 01' the very opposition in which they a re the
opposed , the Other. Michele Montrelay identifies \\lomen as lhe po tenlia l
" r ui n of rcpresentati on"2 precisely beca use 01' thcir positio n wi th in lhe Ha:epteJ
system. Th is is an ident ifiGLtion in rormcJ p,II'lic lIlal'l y hy Iic llliotics Iheory
anu Ihe unde rst anoi ng Iha ! " Woman as sig n" j... I h ~ h:lsis or rc prescntu ti\m
wi tholl! whidl diliC\llll'Sl' cO llld 1101 CX ISI.
J :s"
W()MI ' N'S PE RI' O R M ANC E AR T
Women's perrormance art operates to unmask this function of " Woma n,"
responding to Ihe weight 01' representation by creating an acute a\Vareness of
all that signifies Woman , 01' femininity . The Waitresses, a performance group
in Los Angeles, have foregrounded the connections between images 01' fem­
ininity, women's oppression, and the pa triarchy: in "Ready to Order'!" a per­
former \Vore a waitress uniform with multiple breasts on rront , approaching
unsuspecting customers in an L.A. diner and asking for their order. In 1979
the group expanded its ranks and march ed the streets of L.A . as a band
dressed in waitress uniforms, playing kitchen-utensil instruments. Apart from
the obvious content regardin g the exploitation of women in underpaid labor.
these perrormances evok e an awareness 01' Woman as a sign, blatantly por­
traying the masterlslave relationshj p inherent in her exploitation; Woman
is merely the negative in rel a tion to Man; a sign for the opposite of man , in
service to his needs and dominanee . In "Sitting Still" (1970), Bonnie Sherk
sat for hours in an overstutTed chair in the middle of a flooded vacant lot , in
elegant evening dress and hairdo. Like Wildin g, she seemed trapped in a con­
dition of waiting, but her costume also pointedly chose an image of elegant
" femininity" ror deconstruction: situating hersclf in rel a tion to the ga rbage
and discarded objects in the lot, her imagery simultaneously foregrounded
accepted appearances ror women and rejected lhem . I-Ier stillness and silence
also reflected a feeling 01' helplessness , an immobility as a real woman caught
in the cultural signification process that demands certain behaviors in order
to be Woman.
f'or the final scene 01' a three-week long performance event in Los Angeles
created by Suzanne Lacy and Leslie Labowitz, called "Three Weeks in May "
(1977), lhe audience entered el dimly-lit gallery, wherein a massive win gcd
lamb 's carcass hung from the center 01' the room . Above the carcass, four
nude \Vomen, painted red , crollched quietly on el Iedge. On the floor below
was a graphic depiction 01' sexual assault scrawled in chalk on asphalt. Tape­
recorded voices spoke haltingly ol' rape and assault experiences. As the cul­
mination of three weeks of rape-awareness performances which included
giant maps pinpointing the locations 01' rapes , the final gallery portion of the
event invoked the stark physical reality 01' the dots on the maps, suggesting
the bruta lizing effects of the sexual objectification of women. The nude
women mutely perched on the ledge bore striking resemblance to the count­
less nude women hung on the walls of Western museums, deepening the
critique ora cultural practice that has m<lde ofwoman an object, a category,
a "sign." Through this piece Lacy and Labowitz demonstrated how such
transposition 01' women into signs (or representations 01' remininity) , endan­
gen; the liv c ~ 01' actual women.
T he Jc(;onstrudi vc na lurc nI' w\llllcn \¡ perfo rma nce <lrt is th us doubly
(lllwcrful bl!ctl usc ortlle slat u:, nr W()I1 H: n ill I~hl\ i o ll tn represcntation , a status
whidl. i!ll hc pt;rrOml:lIlC": cnrt ll:X I illltl."l\:ntly ro regr<1 UIlJs the phullocentricity
ur nwJcrll ism/pH lrHlrdly ¡11ll1 ji .. "11'l1lfvIIl V sYl\ lell1 S. Wn l11cn pc rl ürl11ancc
H; _\

 VISIIA I A ltl .\. N ll I'IWIII IIM /\N U ¡ t\ R I
ar lJsl ~ show an illtrillsic 11l1th: rsLan J illg 01 cu l! tlll' Il lld sigllifkat iol1 a ppan:ntly
reachet! solcly through thei!' OWIl klllinist cOllscipuslIl.!ss-raising ami political
acumen; 1l1anifcsting the metaphor most central lO ICminism, that "the per­
sonal is the political," these performe rs ha ve used th e condition 01' their own
lives to deconstruct the systcm they nnd oppressive, and their peTlo rmance
practicc shares com:erns with recent theory interested in unmasking the
system of representation and its ideological alliances.
This type 01' subversion of the accepted social order goes much deeper than
demands for equal pay, demands which are themselves only an acceptance 01'
part of a larger system , of its discourse. As Teresa de Lallretis notes, " W ho­
ever defines the cod e or the context, has control ... anel all answers which
accept that context abdica te the possibility 01' redenning it." J One must be
"willing to begin an argument," that is, to confront the language and meta­
phors which promote \Vomen's oppression. By challenging Ihe very discollrse
01' representation , \Vomen's performance art begins such an argument , and
begins to postulate an alternative discourse, a discourse which shuns the
traditional hierarchies bui1t on power and knowledge, the breeding ground of
oppresston.
Women 's performance art has particular disruptive potential because it
poses an actual woman as a speaking subject, throwing that position into
process, into doubt, opposing the tntditional conception ofthe single, unined
(male) subject. 4 The female body as sllbje'ct c1ashes in dissonance with its
patriarchal text,' chalJenging the very fabric 01' representation by refusing
that text and posing new , multiple texts grounded in real women's experience
and sexuality. This strategy is understood particularly in relation to Lacanian
psychoanalysis which "reads" the female body as Lack, or Other, existing
only to reftect maJe subjectivity amI male desi re. Derived from Freudian con­
ceptions of the psyche, Lacan 's model articulates the sllbject in tcrms of
processes (drives, desire, symbolization) "which depend on the crucial instance
01' castration , and are thus predicated exclusivel)' on a maJe or mascuJine
subject."(' Lacan uses the terrn " phalJus" to designate the privileged signifier,
the signifier 01' power; but he insists that this is not the same as the biolo­
gical penis , amI therefore does not necessarily reside only with males. How­
ever, such a distinction ignores the political implications of the terminology.
The clear connection between the sexual signifier of privilege amI sexual
poJitics has been handled humorously by many women performance arti sts,
as in Vicki HalJ 's "Ominous O peration" (J 97 1), wherein wom en were led
behind a curtain, later emerging with huge phalJuses attached. The changes
in the performers' behavior and references to societal power maJe obvi­
ous the relationship between dominance and the biol ogical member. In a
sim ila r vein, Pat Oleszko created a giant ph alJus rOl' her cost UI1le, "Mac­
rJasher," which she gleefu lly n:vcalcd lO passcrs-hy rmm llll dc r a n oversized
Lrc n<.: hcoal. rllnnin g with notions 01' pen is ellvy amI wlllllcn 's s upposcd
lack .
"\;1
\V ClM I' N'S P EIU'IIRi\I AN I l · t\1t I
I 'o r I.acall, 11!lwcr rcla tionships are determined by the ::;y m bolic order, a
lin g llistically-l~ncOllcd network 01' llleaning amI signification that is internal­
Izcd with the acquisition oflanguage; amI which Lacan sums up as the Name­
llr-thc-Father. recognizing tJle inherent patriarchy. Theorist Julia Kristeva,
by naming woman as the "semiotic" on which the symbolic order depends,
lTeatcs a radical inversion of Lacanian theory, effectively negating his para­
digm . 1n describing the semiotic as the " underside" 01' symbolic language,
she alJies it with the maternal , the femininc, although it is not necessarily
delineated by sexual difference. T his notion nevertheless alJows for breaks in
Illeaning in the language structure, a possibiJity of authentic difference articu­
lated as an alternative to the authoritative, Name-of-thc-Father lingualJy­
constructed society.7 It further foregrounds the psychoanalytic fou ndation
ofWoman as Other, as a construction necessary for social interco urse in the
Western world. Woman has had to be constructed as opposite to man to
validate and shore up the dominance ofmale subjectivity. In "Do not Believe
that 1 am an Amazon," German performance artist Ulrike R osenbach made
her refusal of this Otherness vivid: dressed in a white leotard , she dramatic­
alJy shot aHOWS at a madonna-and-child target. ~ While obviously an attack
on the oppression of women imbedded in patriarchal Christianity, her per­
formance al so illuminated the Amazon myth as a male construction designed
to separate woman from man by designating her as not-man, as his opposite. 9
The opening up 01' alternative spaces or breaks in the language structure
is al so implicated in feminists ' uncovering 01' issues that Lacan ignores, such
as tha! of " the female speaker"- or, how does a woman speak (if it is not
possible for her to be subject)?IU In the Lacanian model, woman , as the cul­
turally constructed, as Other, is trapped in man 's self-representation, existing
only to reftect back his image ofreality, "only as a function ofwhat she is not ,
receiving upon her denied body the etched-out stamp of the Other, as a
signature orher void amI a mark ofhis identity. " 11 As Kaja Silverman points
out, Lacanian psychoanalysis is roliant on the close interdependence 01' the
terms "s ubject" ami "signification," beca use " the discourse within which the
subject finds its idcntity is always the discourse of the Other- of a symbolic
order which transcends the subject ami which orchestrates its entire his­
tory."1 2Then how is a woman to speak as subject, to affirm, discover, 01' insist
upon her own identity?
It is preciscly this denial 01' women as "speaking subjects" that women in
performance art both foreground and subvert. The intensely intimate nature
01' the work, the emphasis on personal experience amI emotional material ,
1101 " acted" nr distanced from artist or audience, is what most characterizcs
this alternati ve. hcterogencolls voice. In 1975, in a piece called "Interior
Scroll," Caroll:c Schnecma nn SI\lOd nude in front of a mostly-female audi­
cm':í!, rit ua listic r a int on her r: I ~'c :1 1111 Imd y. In dim Iighting, she bcgan
l'x lraclin g n na rro w. rop~-Iikc "Ie\ I " 1'1(1111 IIél vagina. rmm which she pro­
cccucd 1(1 .. n;~l( l" .
1} "=¡ '"1
 V 1S I J t\ I "R T' "N 1I l' HItI ' {J le M A N ( ' l ' "1{ 1
I ml; l a ha rry 111 01 11
..1strucluralisl lihlllllaker
but dOlú caLl me Lhat,
it's something cisc 1 do
he said \Ve are fond of you
you are charming
but don ' t ask us
to look at your films
we cannot
there are certain films
we cannot look at
the personal clutter
the persistence of feelings
the hand-touch sensibility
the diaristic indulgence
the painterly mess
the dense gestalt
the primitive techniques .. ,
The filmmaker finishes his remarks by telling Schneemann that she is not "a
filmmakeress . . . . We think o f you as a dancer. " J3 This performance vividly
links together a number of elements relevant to femini st thcory in rclation to
the postmodcrn subject. The performance refers to her insistence on "personal
clutter," highlighting the feminist perspective on the personal as the politica!.
but also contrasting " masculine" from " feminine " modes of addressing the
world; not that these are necessarily biological modes , but derived from the
different ways in which men and \Vomen, constrllcted and conditioned as
such, experience the \Vorld. As is clear from Schneemann 's example, the
feminine mode is devalued by the male-dominated art world for its lack of
logic, rationality , and distance (attriblltes Derrida identifies in "phallogo­
centrism "). Sehneemann's " personal clutter" thus defies conventional (male)
preferencc for artistie detachment:
[Her works] are personal , not only in the usual sense of being based
on particular experiences of the author, but in a radically ditlerent
sense as well; they are conceived as artistic accretions deli vered to the
reader or viewer by Schneemann from il1.1'ide the emotional enviro n­
ment within which they develop. Wordsworth recollected in tranquility
and then wrote; f lemingway sometimes wrote to release the pressure
engendered over a period of time by particular past expe ricnees.
[Schlleema nn] wants to use the ma kiog 01' a work lo prese rve, con­
·ider. anu rco rie nl the process 01' lhe cmolion (all(llhc iJlu lll ina tio nJ
con rusinn il brings) as she cx r cricncc'i il I,{hl' wurb l from a
posit i\ln <' 1' ill lill la9 , IHlt fw m ;t pn<;i liolllll d, '¡f ,lI w" 11
, '1(1
\\ ., M l' N • S l' 1" Jt H lit M " NI ' l': ,\ 1< 1"
Tltis "posilioll nI' illlilll:lcy " is nlle 01' tite lIlost lI()tl~wortlty charaeteristics
Ilf wome n's pcrl'ormance. amI olle 01' the primary appeab 01' the genre ror
wOll1en . As C atherine Ehvcs (herself a performance arlist) notes, "Perform­
ance is abo ut the ' real-life ' presence of the artist. She takes on no roles but
Iter own. She is author. subjcct, aetivator. director, and designer. When a
\Voman speaks \-vithin the performance tradition , she is understood to be
l'onvcying her own perceptions, her own fantasies , and her own analyses. ,, 1)
The performance context is markedly different from that of the stage, in that
lhe pcrformers are not acting, or playing a character in any way removed
from themselves: the mode provides \vomen the opportunity for direct ad­
dress to an audienec, unmediated by another author's "scripting." Rather
Ihan masking the self, women 's performance is bOrll from self-revelation as a
political move; to quote Manuela Fraire, 'The practice of self consciousness
is the way in which women retlect politically on their own condition ,'>I(, and
lhe articulation of self through women's performance cannot help but 1'ore­
ground gender critically. In a Lacanian context, women performance anists
Ihus ehallenge the symbolic order by asserting themselves as "speaking
subjects," in direct deftanee of the patriarchal construction of diseourse . " A
woman performer combines active allthorship and an elusive mediul1l to
assert her irrefutable presence (an ael of remini sm) within a hostile envi ron­
rnent (patriarchy)." 17 One might paraphrase this as the assertion 01' subject­
ivity within a symbolic order hostile to the female subjecl. If the Lacanian
paradigm of the symbolic order is taken as an accurate description of West­
nn culture, then it is debatable whether women (01' meno for that matter) ca n
ever " escape" its identifying power: but women performance artists challenge
its limitations, even its very foundations, through their direct expressjon 01'
subjecthood .
The intensely autobiographical nature of women 's performance has
l'videnced the insistence on a woman 's ability to " speak " her subjectivity. In
.. Deer/Dear" (1978) , Nancy Bllchanan recounted her horrifying dreams of
violence, then related them to the waking ni ghtmare of violence against
\Yomen through recalling the violence she has hersclr experienced. In " Trick
(JI' Drink " (1984), Vanalyne Green painfully reveab her bulimic past and
olher addictive behaviors, traeing a childhood obsessed with dieting and
shadowcd by fami ly alcoholism, all ofwhich she al so relates to her experience
ofthe world as a woman . Linda Montano's deliberate blllrring orart and life
.. long with her focus on the articulation of personal experience challenges the
dcnial 01' her subjectivity. In "Three-Day B1indfold ," the " performance"
l'(Jnsislcd cntircly 01' Montano's self-il1lposed temporary hlindness, intended
lo ['I l'\l ll1ote her own consciollsne~s-raising regarding such a physical chal­
Il:nge. As "(,hickcn-woma n," Moutano drcssed in chiffon ami daneed wildly in
tite slrccts 01' San J-'ranciseo , (JI' on 1Ill' (, p iden G ate Bridge. crcating an image
tltat ha tl !leer pursonu l sign ilk a nn: 1111 hl:r. In pl!rltaps her most ro wcrrul
pUJ IÚnll a lll:e t U l' all a 11 dJ1,; 11 l'\. , Mllt lwll'o¡ Ik atlt ," MOlllano uppcurcd with

V 1Sil" 1. ¡\ R l' "N 11 11 HIU II) H 1\'1 ¡\ N ('" ¡\ RI
whll ~ rll'J f¡¡\:c. pie n;ed by acupllllctllrc IlcL'dles , ami spokc intenscly 01' hcr
fedi ngs rcla( eo lo hn rriend and cx-husbanu's slIdden ueath. SlIch see1l1­
i\lgly d Isparate wo rks have in common the interest in asserting anu cxploring
perso nal , lived cxpcricnce, and are "performed" primarily for herself- in
lulal disrcgaru ror any wltural negation of ber status as a speaking sllbjecL
By insistently occupying this crucial space of sign ificatian as a speaking
subject anu forcgrounuing individual, lived expericnce, lhe wom a n perform­
¡\\lCC artist sllbverts the symbolic ordcr's limited parameters for women,
"Since signification rcsults in an aphanisis of the real , the speaking subject
a\ld its discursivc reprcsentative- i.e. the subject of the speech [in this case,
Woman]- remain perpctually dissimultaneous, at odds."'X In other worus,
actual women speaking thcir personal experience create dissonance with their
represcntatian, Woman, throwing that fictianal calegory into reliefanu ques­
lion. Shock waves are set up l'rom within the signification process itself,
rcsonating to provide an awareness of the phallocen tricity ol' our signil'ying
systems anu the eulturally-determined otherness of women.
Ilowever, the personal and autobiographical for wo men is inextricably
linkeu with fema1c sexuality- "that which is most personal anu at the same
lime most soeially uetermined." 19 The challenge presented by \Vomen's
alltobiographical performance gains strength when seen in conjunction \Vith
\lotions 01' female sexuality arising from the theoretical work of some fem­
inists. For women , sexuality cannot remain private: since one is constructeu
as "Woman" through sexuality in relation to male uesire, the interrogation
nI' this construction is a political acL The corollary problem in relation to
postmodern theories for feminists is that "ir langllage , the symbolic order,
is .. . phallocentric, then female drives are by definilion incapable 01' repres­
entation within it."20 Far women performance artists, the assertion of female
drives and sexllality is crucial, anu their work redaims the female body frol11
ils patriarchal textualization through "writing the bouy," borrowing the term
from Frcnch feminist Héléne Cixous.
CiXOLlS agrecs with Lacan that it is throllgh language that we acquire
patriarchal vallles , but asserts that it is therefore possible to dismantle the
palriarchy through language, specincally by encoura.ging and exploring
wOlllen's language, a language rooted in the female body anu female sexual­
ily. She sees this "other" language as both created by and a manifestation of
\Vol11en's sexual uifference, anu exhorts women to "write the bouy" in order
ll) speak their subjectivity. For CiXOllS, " the fcminine te¡\t cannot rail to be
IIInre than subvcrsive," a perspectivc which echoes Montrelay's earlier remark
regarding women as the ruin 01' representation? Becallse of th e position to
which women have been allocated by patriarchal language, they have tb e
pOlénliél l lO general e s lI bversion of that very la ngllagc rrom with in: b ut in
rev oll agil ill sl lhe psychoanalytic model 0 1' subjcct ¡,;onstruction in which
d(!sill! i~ arliI.: L¡\¡¡ I(!d us (!)H;l usi vcly malé, il i~; rl'mak dcsi rc tha t is mos(
di slll ptlVC . At; IaL' ~ n: th:¡;ti ng nn lv ma \l 's Jl'''"~ W¡lIl ICII MC lIot pcrlllitled II
' 5~
\VIIMI ; N'S PI ~ RH )R MAN( ' " ART
evcl1com:cived oras having or owning their own uesire. Cixous's mandate for
women is thererore to tcrrorize pa triarchal discollrse by writing from the
locus nI' the inscription of differenee. i.e. , female scxuality: " anything having
lo do with the body shoulu be explored ."22
Ilawever, many Anglo-American feminists ha ve criticized Cixous's the­
mies, arguing that a Lacanian notion of language preduues "feminine"
subversion frol11 within. In this regaru , Cixous is often associated with L uce
Irigaray, in their similar emphasis on the need to discover and develop a
ll1eans of expression for women that is not conceived within the phallocentric
system of representation , since "all Western discourse presents a certain
isomorphism with the masculine sex : the privi1ege of un ity, form of the self, of
lhe visible, of the specularisable, of the erection."23 Irigaray \Vas hersc1f a
Lacanian psychoanalyst lIntil she indirectly criticized his theory in her land­
\l1ark \Vork, Speculu/11 (i{ lhe O/he,. WOll1an , which prompted her dismissal
from his academy. 24 In refcrring to the speclllllm, she challenges the Laea oian
"mirror" stage (in which the subject first rccognizes himself as distinet from
lhe first Other, the Mother) \Vith the concave. reflective mirror used particu­
larly to view a woman's sexual anatomy. Like Cixous, Irigaray promotes a
dose identificalion 01' women's language with women's sexuality, and sees
writing as the arena ror new possíbilities relating to women 's subjectivity. 25
Feminist critic Rache] Bo\Vlby questions the possibility 01' realizing this aim
lhrough simply \\Titing: "if language, the symbolic order, is, as they [Cixous
and lrigaray] claim, phallocentric. then fema1c drives are by definiti on incap­
able of representation within it. "26 And ror Ann Rosalind Jones, establishing
a connection between physicality and writing is problematic: "The practice 01'
wnmen's writing is out in the open, for all to see; its basis in the body and id
is 1css certain. "27
This prob1em in rdation to \Vriting becomes pointedly rhetorical \Vith
women 's performance art, an activity whieh challenges the symbolic order on
Illore than just the linguistic leve!. Cixous's anu Irigaray's strategies are much
lIIore vividly realizeu in the context of women 's performance than in writing.
rhe very placement of the female body in the context 01' performance art
positions a woman and her sexuality as speaking subject, an action which
l'lIls across numerous sign-systems, not just the discourse 01' language. The
SCllliotic havoc created by such a strategy combines physical presence, real
1i111L" and real women in dissonance \Vith their representations, threatening
1he patriarchal slructure with the rcvolutionary text of their actual bodies.
t\llhollgh most women performance artists are probably unfamiliar \Vith
('i:'wus , lhl~ y employ lhe stralegy nI' disruption through expression of the
kilI:! \!.: body and sexllality. In tite ri ~cc by Schneemann already cited , for
l·'(;\m pll!. il s0cms as lho llgh her va¡lÍ \l u ilsclr i~ repnrting the scxi:;m. ll annah
Wil kc's pi cc~ ha ve .. lways lIt-ocd hCI UW II Ilude blll.ly as her primary "mater­
1.,1. " fll rC!llllu lIll ill g lit!.: l'onVl'llt ill llfd I I"l'~ ;\1,, [ ubu se:-i nI' liJé fe llla lc hod y. Ir
Iltl' k ll lalc hndy Ita s IWl'lIlI ll' tlll' 1111 '1'< u l Ilw íll sc npl illll uf di tl cn': lIl.:e. IIIl'
1.1
 V 1S il i\ 1 i\ It 1 i\ N 1> ji 1~ ¡ti ( lit M i\ N (' 1, i\ It I
" text" by which iden tity i~ rcad, thcn wOl11cn 's rcrl úrllluncc a rt is a lways Ihr
positioning of a female body as subjcct in dircct opposition to its patria n.:IJ;l1
text. Women performers challenge the very fabric 01' represental ian by rcfl l<,­
ing that text and positing new, multiple text~ groundcJ in real \VOnlcn \
experience and sexuality .
To dismiss this work as cultural feminism ignores its ramificatiollt-; wilh in
representation ami the psychological encoding of the Western signifying sy~­
tems, and focuses instead on nudity as an assertion 01' fema le superiori ty.2R
Such a critique parallcls another common critique 01' Cixous 's \York , citing
the threat 01' essentialism , " in which biological diffe rence is ma de the basis
01' subjectivity, and of the very forms 01' re presentation by which women a re
oppressed. " 29 T he insistence on " writing the bod y" is an aspect of thesc
theories that creates él problem for many feminists , sinee it would seem lo
apotheosize some innate essence that is "\Yoman" and threaten to perpet ua Lc
the basis on which the current objectification of women operates. JO More­
over, the philosophy of cultural feminism lauds th ,lt supposed essence, in a
simple reversal of tenns. Jones ehides Franco-feminist crities saying that
"every bdief about 'what women are' raises political as \Vell as aesth et ic
q uestions. " :\1 Others say it is naive to describe women's subjectivity on lhe
basis ofbiological traits that might derive from and produce different effecls
in different social circumstances . '~ And Bowlby warns that " it remains to be
shown ... that the female body is itself productive 01' a distinctive mode of
subjectivity." But through women 's performance art , the body speaks both as
a sign and as an intervention into language; and it is further possible for the
female body to be used in such a \Vayas to foreground the genderization oC
culture and the repressive system of representation. It is not, as Jill D ola n
argues in a recent Thealre Journal essay, that the nude female body is mea nl
to stand " somehow outside the system ofrepresentation;"" rather, the female
body's significan ce within the system affords the performance artist the pos­
sibility for frustrating fetishistic practiees and assertin g an al ternative viewi ng
practice: When Rachel Rosenthal had assistants mark her physical " ball
points" in " Bonsoir Dr. Schan ," it \Vas a means of conquering societal j udge­
ments ofbeauty and offinally recognizing and claiming her body as her OWI1 ;
in short, of peeling a\Vay the cultural constructions that had condi tio ned hcr
self-image. It should be noted that this \Vas only one scene of a larger wOlk
that was precisely about sexual politics and personal power. 34
Dolan's argument ultimately condemns nudity in performance: "Froll1 a
materialist feminist perspeetive. the female body is not reducible to a sign free
of connotation. "15 Yet women performance artists foregrou nd. this vc ry
connotation , pointing to the seriolls consequcnccs 01' signification with in
cultural parameters. Performin g nude heu;, ror sume pc rformc rs, providcd [lit
opportunity for dec pening Ihe cri tique o f ccn l urics ni clIl! ura l lul1l inali nn.., 111
lhe body. Far from a " puri sl" or ··sclf- rig hl\!Il U'i pos!,; " il1 sClv icc \)f ¡¡n asexual
philnso phy. nH)st km" lc nude Ill'rlú ll1 l:lIh.\·~ "il V~· lk; "1 quil \! spcci lic:tlly and
(,11
\V I 11\11 ·: N'S 1'1 ·:RJlO({ M i\ N( ' 1: i\ R T
blanlantly \Vil h Ii:male sexuality and its cultural suppression. Harbara Smith ,
for examplc. explores her sexuality publidy, through performance, and her
works such as " Feed Me" have raised problems for feminists in the past.
The superficial "content" might seem lo be yet another "'peep show." but th e
performance enacts deconstructi ve strategies when viewed in light of the
above discussion . (n this all-night event lhat was part of a group of perform­
ances in San Francisco, Smith let it be known that she wo uld rcmain in a
small room fo r the duration of th e " show," and that she would inleract with
whomevcr wished to see her, on an individual basis. Nude, she grceted each
visitor as a friend , bricfly encountering them in her room personalized with
rugs, cushions, and incense. Her obvious ease with her own sexuality and un­
abashed cxploration of ncw possibil ities boldly asserted her ownership 01' her
body and her desire, allowing for both vulnerability ami stren¡"rth . Defin itely
not an assertion offemale superiority or an erasurc ofsexuality, Smith 's work
invited the re-examination of cultural standards as well as participants' own
sexualities.
Women's performance actively intervenes inlo the process of construeting
the viewing subject through the disruption 01' the " maJe " gaze. Dolan and
others have questioned the sexual aspects Df these works , asserting that the
work merely re-inscribes th e body as object, as a so urce of voyeuristic pleas­
ure. In faet, it is the ver y choice of the performance art context which denies
the aceepted path for voyeurism. which subverts the malc gaze and the
fetishism of the female body.
M uch of the feminist theory regarding notions of fetishism has come from
the \Vorld offilm theory , wherein the cinematic image pro vides a clcar para­
digm for the workings of fetishism in a patriarchal- and psychoanalytically
encoded -- culture. The mechanisms offetishism are rooted in Freudian models,
hinging on the fear of castration in males. Woman, as the castrated , provides
an opportunity for desire but also of danger: shc lacks the penis, implying
a threat and the possibilit y of unp1casurc. 36 Since the woman is sexual dif­
ference , she operates both as a n icon (the object of the male gaze for the
pleasureable exper,ience of desire) and as a source 01' anxiely over that differ­
ence. As Laura M ulvey pointed out, the maJe unconscious has two avenues of
escape from thi s anxiety: preoccupation with the re-cnactment ofthe original
trauma, which entails invcstigating the " mystery" that is Woman; or sub­
stituting the anxiety with a fetish object. or "turning the represented figure
itself into a fetish so that it becomes reassuring rather than dangerous . "'.7
The sccond avenue, fetishistic scopophilia, builds up the physical beauty 01'
lhe object. transrorming it into something satisfying in itself. Unlike voyeur­
ism, wh iéh needs narrative. fetishislll ca n exist o utsidc linear time as the crotic
instinct is focLlscd on the loo k alone. IX ( 11 f rcudian terms, felishi sm ma kes lhe
wOllla n's boJ Y'1 phallié :'Yl11 l1ol whicl l r~() nsl ,. ucts hcr absen t penis, making
her tcmpura lil y Sll ll: rOl" !l1l: si lc \Ir th:"irc. Thc look 01' the film camera
rerlicatl:s Ihl!sC Iwo "IUllks" nI" pll lti:ll ~ h;t1 ~;(Il.i el y in ma inslrcn nl cinemu, as
'1,1
 1 '1 ' , ."- n n I , \ I ' !\ I I
ha s beclI d Cll lllll slr<:ilcd hy kll1l11 l ~ 1 !I!l1I IIII.'P II ~.h ~lIdl as M II lwy , F. AIIII
Kaplan, Ma ry Aun J)O :lIlC. h :rcsu de JjHl I\:li ~. ,111<.1 nlh ors .
Catherinc Elwes suggcsl s thal, altholl gh it is Ilot possiblc lo cn lircl y escape
th is process, theatre and live cntertainment do nol provide the perfed illusion
necessary for voycuristic narratives: the raet that perfo rmcr and spedator
occupy the same physical/temporal space makcs more diflklllt the dislancing
needed for safe fantasizing. In such cases, successfu l voye urism depcnds on
predictable outcomes. 011 the eo nventions 01' narrative form which presum­
ably guarantee safety in "Iooking. "39 F rom this it follows that women 's
performance art, in totally abandoning and disrupting conventional nar­
ralive, thwarts the illusion 01' distance and ex poses the (male) spectator "(o
the fearful proximity of the performer aud the dangerous consequences of
his own desires. His c10ak of invisibility has been stripped away and his
spectatorship becomes an issue within the work ."40
It is also important to note that (he stripper or entertainer is al so offering
up her body as an object of exchange for anothe,.'s pleasu re, with no reference
to her own. Her identity, other than that of performer, is erased in service of
providing pleasure, in keeping with her fetishistic function within the society.
In LOntrast, womeo performance artists expose their bodies to recIaim thel1l,
to assert their own pleasure and sexuality, thus denying lhe fetishistic pursuit
to the point 01' creating a genuine threat to malc hegemonic structures of
women. Instead ofthe male look operating as the controlling factor (as it does
with cinema), the woman performance artist exercises control : " In defining
the rules of the game and holding the clement 01' surprise as her trump card,
a woman may take unprecedented control 01' her own image. "4 1
In a similar sense, the woman performance artist may work to uncover her
own zones of resistance to the patriarchal " texl" of society, exemplifying the
search for an alternative to patriarchal discourse, one in which women can
speak their own experience, as subjects, from a non-patriarchal frame . Ritu­
alistic e1ements in women's performance are designed to catharticalIy shed
the patriarchal images 01' women and embrace ne\V, self-generated images.
M. L. Sowers, in the nude, had hersclf completely buried in beach sand, then
slowly, painstakingly emerged in a dramatic and moving personal rebirth . A
very private performance, it \Vas witnessed only by her friend and photographer,
who documcnted and gave confirmation to the transformative process.
Her nudity and the ceremonial quality of the performance served to reject
social 01' institutional constraints. In a more public performance, Mary Beth
Edelson created a ceremony for herself and a large group of women to mourn
the persecution and murder 01' witches, those nine million women victimized
by a patriarchal society. One () f the most predominant images of Woman in
culture and literaturc is that of the wilch, the cmbodiment of the unkn o wn
and powerful who threaten!; male do mina ncc ami rherefore must be pro­
claimed evil and destroyed . T he fe ar M wi tches has o lh:n becn idc ntified as a
rea r 01' reméde sexuality (ag<l in. tile Frl!udlU Il 1l111t1\!! n I" Ihe li.'ur 01' ca~t ra l lon
"f1"}
1"1 ,,", 1'.'1 "" ~JI"¡"' 1 4 \ i""" I~ I \I\. I
comes lu Hlllld). :lIId h lclson 's I.:crcnlOlly a ilIled lu recia im rema le sex uality as
a n ~ lO · lhJ'c¡lIc llill/', lik-li.lIu:.
T he femal e body in performance arl , whether nude 01' not, can also articu­
late women's sexuality as never before possible, in a most non-cssentia'¡¡st
multiplicity of voices. To dcconstruct the oppositions based OD gendcr en­
trenched in patriarchy, \Vomen's performance art provides paths to alternat­
ives, to ne\V concepts 01' difference, subverting the canon of codified sexuality
imbedded in centuries of theatre and cultural works. and revealing binary
sexuality as another construction complicit in the oppression of women and
their full exploration of female sexuality. Bonnic Greer's "Vigil" highlighted
the erasure of a black woman's sexuality in her bondage to white culture. In
"Leave Her in Naxos," Rachel Rosenthal showed slides of her various lovers ,
male and female, and discussed intimate aspects of her relationship \Vith
each , effectively speaking herselfin different sexualities. A group ofperform­
ancc artists identifying themselves as lesbians performed "An Oral Herstory
01' Lesbianism ," in which each spoke of her particular oppression as a lesbian
while also frank1ly revealing sexual intimacies. And Carolee Schneemann's
"'Meat Joy" (1964) was so graphic in its celebration of female sexual pleasure
(contrary to Dolan's notion) \Vith both \Vomen and men that one perform­
ance \Vas disrupted when an irate malc audience mcmber rushed on stage to
attack Schneemann.
In refcrence to patriarchal culture, Annie LeClerc has written: "They
invented the whole ofsexuality whilc silencing ours. Ifwe invent ours, they will
have to rethink their own."42 As the creation of alternative points from which
to deconstruct traditionally accepted meanings ofwoman , women's perfonn­
ance art constitutes the continuous "invention" of authentic, heterogcnous
female sexuality, acting as the concave mirror held up to view \\lomen 's sex in
al1 its detail and diversity. Although clearly a graphie rcalization 01' the
theories of Cixous and Irigaray, such strategies should not be disregarded in
haste because of the threat of essentialism. As Jane Weinstock notes:
In defining the woman as "Other, " doesn't it construd a single point
of reference- the maje? The \Voman is simply the opposite, the
" non "-·. ... Perhaps it is becoming necessary to move doser to
what has been called the French "essentialism" in order to escape a
position of perpetual otherness. Recent French psychoanalytic ami
post-psychoanaJytic writings on sexual diffcrence have focussed
on the female body, or "female specificity." Might not this attempt
to return the body to the subject lead to a differentiated viewing
subject?41
Michcl fiou ca ult, who was a lso concerned \Vith forms of resistance to
po wer, describcd strategies ror em powering the subject that am plify this
dis0ussion . F(J \I~:\l IlI ch ~U"a dcrizcs :;tralegics of resistallcc as struggles which
'h \
 , ' 1/\11 '\1 i\ 1( I .(Nr'- I' J ltl '" (I\ I i\NG I ~ i\ lt I
ljucstioll thc status (Ir Ih!; govcl'Ili zt!d il1divlll ual. slInull;tl1l:ously asscnillg lhe
right to be dillerent and resistillg the dcslrudion of cO ll1 l11Lll1ily. Thcsc slral­
egies oppose the privileges 01' knowledge. secrccy. deformation . and mystify­
ing representations imposed on peoplc. They are a refusal of abstraclions. 01'
economic and ideological violence which ignore who we are or determine
who one is: "lhe mélÍn objective ofthese struggl es is to attack .. , a technique,
a fo rm ofpower."44 Women 's performance art is a powerful manifestation 01'
this struggle, as a resistance to the economic and ideological violcnce done to
women. As such it foregrounds the genderization 01' culture and lhe over­
determination ofsexuality, both which are instru mental in the s ubjugalioll of
women , the repression of femal e subjectivity.
Th e charge of individualism has been levelled at performance artists in
general, and Foucault's emphasis on lhe internal workings of power would
seem to feed into such critiques, distancing the particular strategy ofperform­
ance from " real" politics, certainly any politics of coalition. Wb ile the history
of performance art as a whole might be especial1y vulnerable to this critique,
women's performance art in particular has promoted both col1aborative and
collective performance, generating numerous performance groups with specific
political interventionist goals. However, even apart from the more obvious
political stance, women's performance art provides an instan¡;e ofwhat Teresa
de Lauretis has called the " heterogeneous and heteronomous " face of fem­
inism ;45 that is, bolh the differences and the commonalities among women are
made visible and celebrated . Whilc women performance artists speak their
personal , lived experience, and explore the most intimate aspects of their
individuallives, their explorations relate directly to the common category of
their woman-ness, As women. their relationship to representation is unique,
so that the performance context necessarily creates a dissonance with the
representations of " Woman. " Thus the woman perfonnance artist cannot help
but assert an image that is simultaneously heterogeneous and heteronomoLls;
singular and yet eategorical1y related to all women .
While 1 strongly believe in the value ofthe aboye perspectives on women 's
performance, there is a sense in which the terms ofthis discussion are shifting,
"even as we speak." This mobility is a problem endemic to the study 01'
performance art yet is a problem only for the critic/historian- for perform­
ance artists, such perpetually shifting sands are a virtue and even a goal. Th e
terrn "performance art " is rapidly losing any viability as a gcneric possibility
-as performer/dancer Wendy Woodson recently noted , she used to avoid
the label performance artist occause 01' its association with the violent, masoch­
istic, and nausea-producing performers (Burden , Stellarc. Paul McCarthy ,
etc.), Now she eschews it becausc performance has become slick, eomrnercial ,
more "theatrical" in a negative. assimilati ve way.4() In the past year. I not iceJ
another new Lrend in perfo nnances on both coas ls. Th is trcnd is towa rd
con vc ntional actin g amI all lhe pa ramcl ers thltl il irnplbr whicn in lurn
invites assessmen t 01' Ihe picce on thc basili 01 ' IIL' ctlllvcn lional :,l¡tnuards hy
?(¡.I
\VC'-'" f ll N rr -;,: r l ' 1<. 1' " "" IVI " ,-,-, 1- n no I
whidl acting I ~ lI~I Hl ll y j udgcd , i.c., Il:chniq ue, As Lind a UUrIlham no ted in
hn rece n l essay 1'01 '¡he /)r(/lIIt1 Re l'icll'. prior perf0n11anCe art may indeed
have ind udcd role-playin g. singing, dancing, whatever. lhat was frequently
nol "good" by ordinal")' slanuards, but lhat very discrepancy led viewers lo
considcr a different perspective on the work. The piece was not about " doing
something \Vell," but about something else, including the re-examination of
those standards. 47 ln 1987, performances by Iris Rose of Watch-face amI
John Fleck in "PsychoOpera" depended crucially 0 11 the ability to "act \Vell "
and on a coherent overall dramatic strueture. Instead 01' deconstructing
theatrical eonvention , performers now seem to court it, encouraging judge­
ment of the wo rk on more tech nical grounds.
Women performance artists, in general , dominate the field less than in the
I 970s- perhaps precise\y beca use ofthe encroachment of conventional stand­
ards of professionalism. However, some performers evidence the shift in
focus in a desire for a medium \Vith more visible or permanent results: Laurie
Anderson wants to work more with film (despite the lukewarm reception of
Home of (he Brave) and also likes the fact that her performances can be pre­
served on video and record: Meredith Monk , after remarking in an interview
that she wants to make a film , has apparently withdrawn from performance
art for a time, focusing instead on chamber music and the production 01' a
new record of vocal works; and Yanalyne Green and Pat 01eszko, among
many others, are channe\ing their energies jnto film or video rather than
performance,4HGreen says that she can manipulate lhe visual image more
completely in the film medium , thus allowing a hi gher degree 01' artistic
precision. In general , the mid 1980s has brought about a regroupin g, perhaps
in response to a reactionary polítical climate, perhaps in the percei ved failure
of 1970s strategies to achieve more measurable, visible effects.
Rachel Rosenthal, having explored her personallife, has moved to an overt
focus on social issues which are not specifically feminist (but which are clearly
informed by her feminist sensibility). Recent works have dealt with animal
rights , the nuclear threat, pollution , and other, more global issues. Her
continued engagement with the deconstructive strategies of performance art
combined with her dedicated political consciousncss still serves to u 'eale
some of lhe most po\Vcrful work around in the 1980s. Rosenthal's perfonn­
ance style, always highly theatrical in effects and presentation , \Yas once
criticized for ils kinship with theatre; now , others seek to emulate the theatr­
ical cohcrenee of her \York, but often lack the skills to pull it off.
Then therc are performers like Karen Finley. whose re\ative\y obscure
performance work has suddenly been thrown into the lime\ight. Banned in
London. praiscd (and then villified) in the Village Voice, suddenly invited to
performance venues everywhere, Finley's particular brand of violent scato­
logical rant and self-ubusc shot:ked even the jaded New York art scene. Not
lhal othe r WOll1cn haven' l pursucu violen l or offensive performance styles,
wit h a w nsdo lls feminisl agcm.l,, ; Ya lie F xport. L ydia Lunch, and even
(\ S
 Yl , 111 ' IV! i\ N « ' I i\ I( I , \' I 11\11 N ' S (' 1 R I () It '" " N t i AR I

Roscntllal lla ve ,k llh\; I, lldy \V \ I, kéd ll¡!.a ins l " pn:lty" imagcs OC' cOll vcnlional
aesthctics. In lsl ra 1ing vOYl'u rism, a ll d chalknging sociclal conccptions 01'
women as arli~ts. Thc violcncc and/o!" "d isgust" t~lCtO!" in these wo rks fuc\s
the exploration 01' aesthetics as <In ideological trap, one which subjugales
women in particular but which al so dicta tes the numbed and plastic tastes 01'
dominant culture.4~ Howevcr, in Finley's case, being catapulted into a highcr
dcgree of visibility hastened her assimilation into a more commercial audi­
ence. In venues other than New Y ork , beer-drinking fraternit y boys came lo
scc the naked woman shove yams up her ass and throw obscenities at the
crowd. Her work became re-inscribed in the fetishistic process associated
with strip-tease or live sex, and not at al1 the feminist or subversive strategy
Ihat thcory might endorse. Fin1cy hersc\f seems to 'have made note of this ,
and her newest work is reportedly much more direct in its declaration of
feminist politics. It even opens with a bril1iant bit oferitieal self-examinatio n:
dad in a leopard skin fur eoat, Finley yelIs "Get that dead animal out ofmy
racc!" (a remark reportedly made by Rosenthal to F inley on their first encoun­
ler): then drops the coat to thc f1oor, revealing her n udity; lea ves the stage,
and returns cIothed to continue the piece.50
Finley's apparent re-evaluation of her work and awareness of audience
highlights two important issues for women 's performance art in the 1980s.
Nutcs
Moil'a Rulll , l:d. , ¡he A/lw::illg /)eCIf(/C : WOI1lCI/ il1 Per!cm"l/ol/cc Arl. 1970 1980
(Los i\ngeles: i\slro i\rtz. 19XJ). 144.
.' Miehele Montrelay, " Fclllininity ," mlt aj'eminisljou/'Ilo/l (1978) .
.1 Teresa De Lauretis. Alice J)o esn'l: Feminis/II. S ern io lÍcs a/l(1 Cinema (Bl oomillgton:
Indiana University Press. 198J). 3.
4 Diek. Hebidge. Su!J('u!l/Ire: T/¡e l\lJealling (Jl Sly le (London: Methuen) . 165.
5 See Kaja Silverman , Th e SuhjeCl 4 S ellliJilics (N ew Y o rk: Ox fo rd Universit y
Press, 1983). 197. for remarks on the potenti a l dissonance uf a speaking subjeet
and its representation.
(, Josette Féral. " Powers and DitTerem;e," in TIr e Fulure of Diffá ence, ed . Eisenste in
and Jardine (Bostan : G. K. Hall , 1980), 90.
7 Carolyn Burke, " Irigara y Through the Loo kin g Gl a ss." Feminisl Sr lidies 7: 2
( 1981): 111.
8 RoseLee Goldberg. Pelfimnal1ce: UF(' Arl 190910 Ilre Presenl (New York: Harry
N. Abrams, 1979), 114.
9 F o r a m ore extended diseussion of the Amazon as él male-eo nstructed im a ge
of women, see Sue-Ellen Case. Femil1isl'/l (f/1d 71¡ealre (London: MaeMillan , in
press).
ID Burke, " lrigaray Through the Looking Glass." 111.
1I Fe ral. " Powers 01' Differenee," 89.
12 Silvcrman, Srrhjec r (Jl Semiolics, 194.
13 Quo ted in Roth . Th e Amazing De cade, 14.

14 Seott MaeDonald , " Carolee Sehneeman 's ABC: The Men Cooperated," Aper/moKe

The threat and power of assimilation is constant, and most visible in the
make-up of the performer's audience; Laurie Anderson 's appeal for a main­
stream rock audience illustrates this problcm·- just how much does the work
retain any potentialIy subversive impact once it has achieved commercial
viability? To what extent do those commercial endorsements render any
radical politics impossjble? Yet, ifperformance artists are doomed to relative
obscurity, playing only to audiences of "the converted," how will societal
consciousness be raised (or abrased) on a larger scale? Should this even be a
conscious goal? One might argue that Anderson 's gender-bending appear­
ance and performance stylc continues to evoke a deconstructive process,
however subliminal. Women performance artists meanwhile continue the
chal1enge of cultural deconstruction. actively providing a feminist frame of
reference for the re-articulation 01' difference- and what expression that
chalIenge takes next remains to be scen .
12: 9 (1985): 12.
15 Catherine EIIVes. "Fl o ating Feminity: A Look at Performance Art by W o rnc n." in
WO/l'len ' .\· /mages o/ lv/ell , ed . Kent and MOHeau (London: W riters and Readers
Publishin g, 1985), 164.
16 Quoted in De Lauretis, Alice Doesl1'l . 185.
17 Elwes, "Floatin g Feminity," 165.
18 Silverman , Suhjecr ofSemiolics . 197 .
19 De Lauretis. Alite Doesn'l . 184.
20 Rache! Bowlby, " The Feminine Felllale," Social Te XI (Spring/Summer 1983): 58.
21 Héléne Ci xous. "The Laugh of the Medusa," in New Frencll Fe/l1ini.\'II1. ed . Marks
and de Courtivron (New York.: Schocken Books, 1981).
22 CiXOLlS in Helene Wen zel , "The Text as Bodyl Polities : An Appreeiation ofMonique
Wittig's Writings in Context." Feminisl SIl/dies 7:2 (1981): 266.
23 Luee 1ri garay , "Women's Exile ," /deology & (.'OI1SÓOUSlless 1: 1 (1977) : 64 .
24 See Luce Iriga ray , Sp ec ulum o/ Ihe Olher WOI 11 {/n , transo Gillia n C. Gill (New
York : Cornell University Press , 1985).

25 Burke. " Irigara y Throu gh the Looking Glas!>," 289.

Feminist theory, having discovered in postmodern theory fertile ground

26 Bowlby, 'Teminine Female," 58.

both for critical and idcological strategies, thus also discovers a vivid and 27 Ann Rusalind Jo nes. " French Theo ri es of the Felllinine." in Mokil1g (( Oijj'e rel1ce:
active voice in woman's performance art. 1n deconstructing the system of Femi/lisl Lilerary CrilicislI1 . ed. Greene and Kahn (London: Methuen , 1985). 106.
representation, this performance practice is paradigma tic as a powerful strat­ 28 Sec J il D olan. "The D ynamics o f Desire : Sexualit y a nd Gender in Po rn ugraph y
egy of intervention into dominant culture. Eminently political regardlcss 01' and Performance," Tlrealre ./ounral 39: 2 (1987).

intent, the activity pursues an <lwareness of the phallocentrism 01' ollr signi fy­ 29 Bowlby, "Felllininc Female ." 62.

JO WCl1 ze! , "Text élS Body/Polilics ," 266 .

ing systems, and instigates the demolition ofgenderized iden tities. Not merc1 y .\1 J O I1 CS, " h cnch Theorics," 1()(,.

a retlecti o n 01' femi nisl theo ry. women's performa nce a rt r rovides a vi sible \2 Bcv.:r1 y BrllIVn and ParwclI i\d ; IIH ~ , "Thc h :mi nine Body amI reminist Polities."

basis for the construction 01' él feminist I'ramc 01' rcre rcllI;c. arliculatillg alter­ r.\ (
1111 1()7 (»: .1:\ 17 .

nat ivcs rOl" power and rcSislUlKI!. .H Dolall . " 1)Y,,¡lIl1ics 01' Desllc," \ , ')

1("
?(H ,
 11 1).. lall.lI .., ¡\I '.~ II \h¡':S 1111 ' \VPlk h\' 1~1\ hl' I"Ii , d 111 111, ""lIl" ull',dlll¡¡II I l" I\ II I1 ~' n .
wl lll:h 111 11," P:lI II (.;II I:1 l l:aSl: i~ c;t¡l'l'I '1 1"1111 11)' 1 1I1 ~k, I\ I III I'. ·0111....: R (,selll hal ill 11 1) W; IY
11l~l i l:v ~:; Ihal W()III C1 1 an.: hi() klg ically rlr Sl'illlll;lIly ' .11 111"11\ >1 1.. 111,'11 Olllall\ n:h:l­ 81
encc ill Ihis cOIIIl.:xl d{,c:,¡ hel" ¡¡ Jissc rvice.
35 IbiJ .. 160.
36 See Laura Mulvey, "Visual Pleasure and N arrati ve Ci nema ," Screen 1(,: 3 (1975). N EGOT 1ATI N GD EVI A N CE

37 lbid., 158.
38 Ibid, 158. A N O NORMATIVI TY

39 Elwcs, " Floating Feminity," 172.

40 Ibid ., 172- 173. Performance art, boundary transgressions,
41 Ibid. , 173.
42 A nnie Leclerc, Parole de Femme (Paris: G rasset , 1974), 42. and social change
43 Jane We instock , quotcd in Maureen Turirn, "What is Sexual Diffcrence'.'··
Ajierlmage 12:9 (1985): 5.
44 Mil.:hel FoucaulL " W hy Study Power: The QlIcstion of the S lIbject," in ¡'.fichel
FOllcalll/: Beyond Srrucruralisl1I ({/Uf lJermel1l'lIlics, ed. Hubert L. Dreyfus anJ Paul Brilla B. Wheeler
R abino\V (Chicago: Univcrsit y 01' C hica go Press, 1982), 21 1.. 12.
45 T eresa de Lauretis, "Feminist StuJies: Reconstituting Knowleoge ," Unpublishcd
m::;. (Spring 1985). Sourcc: Murilyn Corsianos and Kclly Amanda Train (cds), lnlerroga /ing ."ocial JlIs/ice: Poli/ir,\',
46 R emark madc on a panel discussion ofperformance art, October 23 , 1987, Harnp­ CI/I/lIre, and Idemi/y. Toronlo: Canadian Scholars ' Prcss, 19')'), pp. 155 179.
shire Collegc. Amherst, Massachusetts.
47 Linoa Burnharn , " Performance Art , High Performance ano Me," Tite Drama
Rel'ielV 30: 1 (1986): 36.
48 Remarks rnade in various interviews or conversations with the author: Anderson
ano Monk , 1983; Green ano 0leszko, 1987.
49 As Dolan notes, F inley "does llot offer hcrself as a passive object ... shc oesecr­
ates herself as the object of[rnalc] Jesire." See 161 ·-63. Introduction
50 As recoun ted by Mark R ussell , producing director of Performance Space 122 ,
Ncw Y ork, October 1987. Contemporary art explores identity and challenges taken-for-grantcd as­
sumptions about self and society. These practices come from the tradition of
Ihe avant garde and promote social jllstice through art, which often uses
provocative and direct modes of representation to enact difficult subject
Illatter and to call attcntion to social problems. Thc history and practice of
avant garde art, specifically performance art, relies on the use of disjunctive
and contradictory images, boundary transgressing methods and shock tacties
lo subvert status quo ideals and institutions. Thus contemporary avant garde
artists and their work are often known , construeted, labelled, and stigmat­
il.cd as deviant by those who do not understand or disagree with these art
world 110rmS. Deviance is, however, contextual- in the eye of the beholder­
determined not by inherent qualities in the aet but by the power to label and
Ihe power to enforce the label (Backer 1963; Erikson 1966). But a paradox
cxists in the realm of art: rule-breaking behaviour is thought to be preserved
against sanctions imposed on common sociaJity because of its context inside
Ihe art frame. and it is conversely labelled and sanctioned as deviant by those
lIutside of the art context who find it a real threat to more conventional
lIotions of social and artistic decorum. Cutting edge contemporary art is intcn­
Iionally dcviant; pushing lhe limits of accepted boundaries, on one hand, and
Ihe victim 01' bci ng la belled Hnu sanctiollcd as such, on the other. Thus,
hecause 01" the work 01' contem purary pl!rfn nnan ce él rtists , the contradiclions

)(,X 't,')
 ' · J~- ' :- I
" -,
cm bci.hh:ú in thl' 1\Olioll u l' wlwl is IWIIII:!I alld good (Inl WII OlIl, w lll.: n:, Ullt!
when) becomc increasingly visibk as the: slakcs o ver lhe sI l ugglc lo d ct illc
normality heighten when artists challen ge non11S nf' acccpt able rer rcsent ­
ation and a conventional status quo ideal 01' art amI pu blic cx prcssiVII. In
this chapter, I discuss the ways performance artists produce sOl:ial change
by experimenting \Vith and confronting social and personal boundaries, thc
limitations imposed by these and thcir con struotions. F irst I describe the
works o f m o re radical performance artists and their uses 01' artistic con tem
and form to in voke social change. Then I talk about the resista nces to artiSlS'
\Vork by a conserva ti ve bal:klash in a controversy ovcr US government fund­
ing for the arts . ,In lhis public crisis, divergent groups competed over author­
ity to define core societal values and the symbolic represcntation of these.
Finally I show how artists use pedagogical strategies to accomplish smaller
social and politica l ehanges alter tb e outery against radical art. I use data
from field \York, in terviews a nd public reeords of performance events and
con troversics.
Pe''formallce Ad
Performance art pro vides a creative locale where art making and socio­
political concerns mergc because of thc open-ended natlire of thc art form, its
historical basis in radical intention , its anti-aesthetics, and low-tech require­
ments. Performance artists are interested in broadening traditional moral
boundaries a nd oppressive a ssumptions about marginal members of society
and hold the possibility 01' creating a :>ociety based on an overall acceptance
of difference rather than an either/or, good/bad set of definitional assump­
tions. They creatc ritual art and performance art that cross the boundarics
between art and Iife and resist traditionally confining definitions of identity,
providing space where alternative realities are examined and presented . By
doing this they contest deflnitions ofmarginal identities, including that ofthe
artist as irrelevant to the regular mechanisms of society .
Performance art intentionally plays with the Iines bctween art and audi­
cnce , content and formo Artists may confront audiences \Vith work that docs
not fit convcntional definitions 01' beauty. The artist may bring the audiencc
into the art work by directl y confronting thern or making the work on the
street 01' in other non-traditional artistic venues. This work poses more of a
threat to social norms than art that provides more 01' a distance between art
and real lite or art and audience beca use it refuses audiences role as passive
observer (see Wheeler 1997 for a discussion of aesthetic distance and contem·
porary art). Thus, the use offormal techniques , perhaps those that asscrt the
oppositc oftraditio na l aesthetics, works also to subver l mt world hierarchies.
Avant garde performance art rejects of the separatiol1 M a rt ("ram society an d
c haUenges lhe institution 01' art that promo tes lh is di vision be tween lhe
aesl hetic <l mJ social rt!alms ( Bl:n jami n 1968; R idbs I l/X, ¡ ). Nch ring (N c h ring
"70
." ' "' , , , • 1 , ' I I 'J " ' . . , n: ,,~ 1 - " I''''f , . r ~ f'i l ' I -~ ' . ' R ¡n i ' I • " I I I
199 \ ) s ll g!'~"; I :, 1I H1 1 ¡¡valll go rJ c arl illd lld\! ' lIch cu llural pwcJ lIctioll as punk
Itlck 1ll1l:;1\..: a nd a ttlludcs hCl:a nsc lhey b rillg a r! into lhe everyday , Illaking it
I\'k-vant lo sllI.;ial Jiscoursc. This d elinition or avant garde art dilTers from a
III1)rl: convcntlOnal onc rocused primarily on avant garde art as primarily an
¡Ir( world innovator located in museums and for the purposes ofmaintainin g
:nt world uistinctions of high and low culLure. But crossing boundaries , even
hdwccn gencralit.cd concepls Iikc art and lile , is not always casy and is o ften
lakcn as rulc-breaking. Performance artists in the late 1980s pushed limits of
acccptable represcntation in their attempts to crea te social change and awa re­
Ill:ss . In doing so , definitions of deviance and the moral order of society were
rallcd into question .
Theo,.;es 01 del1¡QJlce
Sllciological theories of deviance rest on a common assumption that defi ni­
lions of what is known as devian t change over time and place. Deviance is
l'onlingent on processes 01' symbolic and act ua l labelJing, prevailing defini­
tions ofthe normative moral order and the power to deny legitimacy to those
labelled deviant (Goode and Ben-Yehuda 1994; Pfohl 1994; Sumner 1994)
Therefore , labelling ,is concurrent with social norms , but these norms challge
over time and place.
Deflnitions of deviance are constructed through conftictcd social p rocesses
:Ind organiz ed efforts to change collective meanings of social behaviour.
Scllin (Sellin 1938: Kelly 1993) marked the way that con ft icts betwee n d ive r­
gent cultures arise when norms and symbols conftict in the borders between
thcm. This occurs " when the law of one cultural group is extended to coye r
the territory of another" 01' when members 01' mi grate across groups (Sell in
19~8: 74). Thcse boundary crossings produce tensions and struggles and orten
result in membcrs 01' one group taking action to define the situation accord­
ing to their own goals. They promote causes in order to shape social norms to
coincide with their vision 01' the issues at hand . These " moral entrepreneuIs"
(Backer 1963: 128) use organized means to gain publicity for perso nal inter­
l'sts ano makc or enforce social rules through individual promotion and
l':Impaigns for their causes.
Performance artists are moral entrepreneurs in that they promote social
vhange in their art work . Their goals are loosely constructed aro und an artistic
practice ofidentity politics interested in gaining a public voice and to increase
visibility ror individuals and groups with traditionally marginal, silcnt and
illvisible idcntities (Hirsch 1972; Marsh and Kent 1984: Phelan 1993). Artists
do l!lis by lalking openly amI assertively about race, sex and gender. When
Iwrfnrmance a rtis ts cross bo unuarics 01" standard social deeorum , they meet
I esistulll"C fro m o thers olTemlcd by Iheir opcn ness a n d d isregard for norm­
ali vc social r ules . Thu:; a c~lII tli cl ~~(.:\,; l l rs over ddiniti ons, represcntations an d
Jllod es 0(' n:prescn lalinn . !\ "111011 :1 1 pa llil."" (I l isl:S whe n s uch con tcsla tions
"/1
 I ~" 1I 111 Nn - I
"CCOIlI ~ \.!Cl lh,:clivc J isp tllcs il ml " :1 \'!(\ lI d ll l" .1 ,1 11 1· 1 1I',IIJ~. pI.: I SOII 01 gwup 01'
pcrson s emcrgcs ti) bccnlllc ddi llcu as a 1III I.'jl! (11 ~U\; i d al va h.c:-. allJ inl<.: r­
csts, .. " (Cohen 1972: 9). In the conlro vcr,y \ )V\': I' liS arls fu odi ng in Ihc la le
1980s and I 990s, wmpeting groups 01' moral cntrcp rcncurs artisls on one
hand, consc rvative coogressmen , on the other attempled to defi ne arl a nJ
the soci al good in different ways to gain support fo r their respective reforlll
strategies. Thus a cultural cl ash ensued over the definition of art, publi cly
acceptable modes of expression, the government funding of art and lhe use or
symbols as markers of social norms in each al' these.
Turner's theory (Turner 1969) of " social dramas," similar to the idea o f
moral panics,' frames such collective crises as momen ts of possibility th a t
show social processes as a set of events, li ke a narrative, occurring in seq uence
and leading to a range of possible social functions am I outcomes. Social
dramas can reveal ongoing reproduction of social relations that are othcrwise
obscurcd by routine daily practiccs. A social drama can become the focal
point and functional remedy for a society in crisis a nd artists who intended
their work to promote such a moment 01' possibilit)'. Crisis moments reflected
in a social drama may allow for an increased level of reflection to occur and
may provide potentially "liminal" moments (i.e. , a moment of activity that is
difficult to define; one that causes uncertainty), which allow for social trans­
formation (Turner 1969; Wagner-Paciflci 1986). Artists attempted 10 create
social drama through thcir individual performative practices in order to call
attention to their concerns on a larger stage.
A social drama allows change beca use pub lic themes are called into q uestion
as a result of the conflict being playcd out in (he social drama. Subsequently
a re-evaluation of the conflicting themes takes place, creating sorne form of
social change or renewal of social values. Pe rformance art strategies that
conflate life with art allow liminality to happen beca use taken-for-granted
boundaries are crossed, thus highlighting a boundary that was previously
invisible. In the words of performance artist, Ray Langenbach
[in a performance that crosses boundaries] people are able to become
more aware ofthat which already is. [This social behaviour] beco mes
a dynamic thing: the figure to look at rather than just the ground.
The perceptual field around it changes. 1t is not always clear ifthings
get better or if things get worse, it becomes a moment of crisis. Then
hopefulIy some resolution of that crisis, you know, comes out of il,
but that is something that generally either in politics, religion, or in
performance art, the performer, in the larger sense of that word , has
very little control over. It beco mes a social dynamic, and the per­
former is basica lly just scratchi.ng the edge ,md then Ihe thing hap­
pens o ut of that. .. . It is very problemal ic in some way'> . but there is
that elemellt in social lile and a gro up will dca l wil h il when Lhey
have to . When Sl)melhing a ppea rs ill il d iIÚ:n.:n l rtarnc lhan IIsuaL
"17"
.~ t _~_ ·-~ - I ,.-~ r-' - I -' ''''' · •.---- I-.-.... --.- " ~ r lr'
IIIl'I1:,ll ddclll v 11 "a~ tI) he d l.: ,dl w1111 11 j , IlslIU ll y jllsl bm icu ¡11 1l1
pco pk l'll OIl wilh Ihdr li ve!';, hlll I !t1l\.:~S thal IlIell' is hope Ihallherc
is S0111e rcso nallcc Ihal kccps UII gnill g. wilh pcoplc amI Ihen forcvcr
IlIal Ill ing is no Innger jUl\t the clich(: lhal it wa~ bcfore,
(Pcrsonal telephone interview, 1998)
!\rtists '\:reate a crisis" in order to instigate liminality in the hope of erea t­
illg ncw awareness and social change. Performance artists assert their mar­
I'inal identil)' statuses to create crises as points of empowerment' and , during
I he late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, artists gained the most attention
when confro nted those identities most directly embedded in the conflicts over
sexo sexual identity, sexual politics and AIDS. As a response to the AIDS cr,isis,
I he ongoing degradation 01' women, and the denial and repression of él Iterna­
live sexual identities, artists openly di seussed and displayed sexual acts in the
Pllblic realm in order to increase objective understanding of sexual cxperi­
l'nce. Performance a rtists David Wojnarowitz, Holl y Hughes, T im M i11er and
.101m Fleck vocalized the expcricnce of being gay and refused the negative
sllcial stigma attributed to it by enacting the ACT- Up 4 tenet that " silence =
dcath." They addressed the public denial and the unequal positions of being
gay in society by using their art speak directly to powerfu l public figures and
lo redefine normativity based on their experiences.
David Wojnarowicz wrote an essay for an exhibition catalogue in which he
allacked puhlic figures who stood against funding AIDS research a nd publicly
opposed homosexuality. Wojnarowkz described Cardinal John O 'C onn or as
;¡ "fat cannibal 1'rom that house of walking swastikas up on Fifth Avenue"
amI with increased outrage in his angry tirade , he imagincd ho\\' he could
"douse [.Iesse] Helms with a bucket of gasoline and set his putrid ass on fire"
alld "throw Rep. William Dannemeyer off the Empire State Building"
(Wojnarowicz 1989). He also made complexly layered colIages that combined
political imagery with homoerotic subject matter and performed his angry
lIlonologues as critiques of "cultural excesses and politics of exclusion " .
Ilo11Y Hughes created unequivocalIy lesbian plays that re1'used any adher-
1'llCC lo whitc male hcteronormativity by simply ignoring it. (Heteronomlativity
is ¡t tcrm that suggcsts the social construction of social sexual relationships
Iltal are taken for granted in most contemporary cultures. In other words,
tltis tcrm rcfers to the notion that heterosexual unions and the societal
IIlslitutions that support these are not nccessarily natural , but require an
!lllgoing enforcement in order to maintain them.) "There is no subterranean
appeal lo dominant culture for understanding" (Davy 1993: 55). Taking the
~;Ialldroint of a Icsbian subjectivity subvcrted traditional normative rules
;dllllll being silcnl and submissi ve aS a person with an outsider status.
Tim MilIer's wor k took r>1¡¡~c in perr(lrmance spaces and with ACT-tJP/I.A.
IlIlc!!rali ng his slagcd work wil h (' Ihc\' lili.: wl)rk s. Miller's performance art
Ipo k Ihc t'mlll ()I" m ga ni7in l' lbl ,',ily \;ol11 lT1 uni ty, asscrting the social a nd
~n
 \' I-~ ~ . 17\ · r ,- " .,.... , --, -.-....-_. .....~ . - IT'1'n ~ .,...- , ·- 1...,.- '" .,-- .
politil.:al nccds lhelc a ntl lIlaki llg lllc 1;11111 11"1 11 1111 , IlrtWl'C II lile gay \:1I11l11lU 11lly
<lnd other soeially ll1ar ~ inal groll ps (Jlul Jll' 1 )I}I}X 1 1 <lO) .
O tllcr performance artists, Iikc Allnic Sp rillkl c ami Karcn r;i "ley,' tllo k
rcpresentations of women into their OWI1 hemos by distorting and rc makin g
stereotypical images. Annie Sprinkle started doing pcrforma m:c arl artcr ;1
career as a porn star in order to call attention to doublc messa gcs abollt rcma le
sexuality. Sprinkle "demystined " the femalc body by sh owing her cervix lO
audienee members and demonstrating orgasm on stage (ScllIlcidcr 1997).
Karen Finlcy raged about the way women were patron ized and ridiculed.
She smeared chocolate on her body in order to represent how women were
treated like dirt. This performance \Vas said to d efy an y notio n o f the femalc
body as sex ual and therefore Finley " renders pornograph y impotent" (Can
1993). The general tenor of her work takes the form of an angry tirade agai nst
the abuse of power in both political and personal realms. Finley responded
in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post (May 19, 1990). " Actually, m y
work speaks out against sexual violence, degradation of womcn, incest anJ
homophobia. When I smear chocolate on my body, it is a symbol 01' women
being treated like dirt," Finley stated (1990).
Appropriation of the social drama
The frank nature of the material and the combination of public and private
realms provoked rapid moral outrage from right-wing members of the US
Congres s who used the excuse of government fund ing to crea te a nati ona l
panie over gove rnment funds for " pornography. " These artists hit the core
social issues ofrepresentation, meaning and the authority to define, and through
their work called direct attention to the social , political and representational
injustices against marginalized groups occuring at that time . The social drama
crisis created by artists was quickly appropriated by more institutional ized
and powerful members of society.6
Social dramas unfold as a series of tour steps: naming the threat, building
a consensus for this dennition , eontinued labelling and implcmenting insti tu­
tional power (Alexander 1988). Individuals and groups with institution al
power come to take control of a social drama by defining another group as
d eviant and cnlisting others in a consensus to label this dev iant behavio ur as
a concerted threat to the core values ofsoeiety. 7 For resolution ofthe threa l
to oceur, institutional and legitimate means of social control must be drawn
upon to stop these potentially " polluting forces" in order to resolvc the conll ict
posed by them . Counter-centres emerge when these social control efforts rely
on multiple contingencies to enforce centralized norms as the generally agreeJ
upon outcome of the conR ict. A nd lastly, in this process 01' crisis and rencwa 1.
sym bolic processes d crived rro m a n alliam:e or lhose intc reslcJ in con tain ing
social transgression con tinue lo label a no J illercnlia tt' no nn al ivc sOtial val Llcs
froOl those Ihat pose él signilka nl lh rca t 1\1 Ihe:;1..' va llJcs , r hc s()cial d ra ma a~
) 7 ,1
I'­ '-, ' _"" _! "' - ' r \ ' .--. , 1' - " I _-.._
.... - _ ----.
....... ... _..
,1 'o llllg¿·k· "Vel v.d IlC~ alld Ihl':;c 11 1\(' 11 111" 111 Jd lllL'lhe ~ ,I ell.:d Cl'lItre IIrs~)ci cly
" Val llsl 1111 II SI.lICSS I Vl: act illllS rcvCil ls t hl' hlOadl'J' IIIcd", 11 iSI1IS 01" I hc social
1'I1IIsI rud it ," ot' dcvianee ill clrcet in this crisis.
Artists alkll1plcJ to lahel oppressive social systcms deviant by calling them
Ollt, L'nading thclll , rcl"using and ignoring them. However , arlists' power lies
i" shock al1LI confrontation and in redefining the social landscape through
arlislic action. The moment at which artists cease to perform for audiences
alrL~ady cOlllll1ilted to their causes is the simultaneous m oment 01' most and
kast power. It is these moments of provocation and their accomplishmen ts
that show the relative power 01' the marginal and the institutional.
Right-wing congressmen and the family values coalition redenned this
lTisis as one about good amI evil and used this religious platform to attack
rllnding of the arts. The NEA-funded (i .e. , the Na tional Endowm ent for the
Arts) exhibitions by photographers Robert Mapplethorpe and Andres Serrano
led to this controversy over artistic representation of social values because of
their use of directly sexual and religious imagery . Mapplethorpe and Serrano
lIsed similar techn,i ques as those 01' performance artists to cross over the dis­
linctions between what is real and what is staged . Therefore, as photographs,
,'ven staged works take on the tone of reality .
An initial lctter from April 5, 1989, written by the executive director of the
American Family Association , called attention to Serrano' s photograph " Piss
( 'hrist. " The primary focus of this initial letter \Vas the " bias and bigotry"
against Christians by both popular cultural productions as well as ones
slIpported by government funds. l t was Jesse Il elms 's May 18, 1989 letter lo
the NEA chairman, Hugh Southern, protesting the use of government funds
I"m the art 01' Andres Serrano that brought attention to " govern mcn t supported
infractions against Christians. "
Mr. Presiden!. several weeks ago, l began to receive a number 01'
Ietters , phone calls, and postcards from con stituents throughout the
State concerning art work by Andres Serrano. They express a feding
of shock , of outrage, and anger.
They said , " lIow dare you spend our taxpayers' money on this
trash." They all objected to taxpayers' money being used for a piece
of so-called art work which, to be quite candid , I am somewhat
rcluctant to utter its title . This so-called piece of art is a deplorable,
despicable display of vulgarity. The art \York in question is a photo­
graph of the crucinx submerged in the artist's mine .
This artist received $15,000 for his v,:ork from the National
End()wlllcnt for the Arts , through the So utheastern Centcr for Con­
tcm po ra ry A rt.
Wcll il" Ih is is what c()ntcm pmary e1rt has Sunk to , this level, this
o ul ragc, thi s ind ignity Sll l1lC may wu nt lo sa nctio n that , and that is
finco 13ut nol wilh the m;¡,: o r lnxpayers' ll mllcy. T his is no t a question of
'/ ' \
 VI 'I 1j 1\ 1 A le I ANI' l'rQ(I , ¡l itl\.1¡\N I ' I ' 1'11(1
I'rl'l! :;p~cdl. This is a quest iOIl OLlhllsc o t laxpaycr:-.' IlIOIH,y I I'wc allow
lhis grOllp ofso-caJlcd arl cx perts lo ge l a \Val' will! lhis, to defame LIS
and to lIse our money, well tIJen wc do not descrve to be in oftke.
That is whl', MI". President, 1 am proud of the Members, who in
literallya matter 01' minutes - over 20, about 25- joined me in sign­
ing a strong letter 01' protest to the Endo\VmenL B ere is a picture,
and the title is "Piss Christ. " lncredible,
... The purpose for which the l:ndo\Vment was established, and 1
quote, " to support the survival of the best of all forms that reliect the
American heritage in its full range 01' cultural amI ethnic diversitl'
and to provide nat ionalleadership on behalf 01' the arts."
Mr. P resident, 1 submit this is a distortion of those purposes. It
does not retlect on the fu)) range of cultural and ethnic diversity;
rather, it is a perversion of those principIes. If people want to be
perverse, in terms 01' what they recognize as art or culture , so be it,
but not with my monel' , not with the taxpayers' dollars, and certainly
not under the mantle of this great Nation , This is a disgrace.
(Bolton 1992: 28 9)
Helms uses the authority of traditional religious morality to assert his
detlnition of deviance and to implicate the government use of arts funds in
this matter as an assault against the normal moral good. His statement makes
blanket assumptions about the unification of religious communities and the
values of the American people, and simultaneously crea tes Serrano as the
criminal against these general moral concerns. It is al so interesting to note
how Helms distances himself from the "government" while aligning with the
concerns of "vast majority of the American people."
Buildillg CO/I.~ellSIlS
Along \vith the religious organizations and individuals \Vho found art tha t
dealt \Vith sexual and religious identity offensive, the old guard art world
became confused and concerned about the recent turn towards broad incl u­
sion 01' a range of aesthetic principies and multicultural themes im bued \Vi th
political messages. Consensus, then, \Vas bllilt over loosely structured gen­
erational alliances rather than traditional political or religious affiliations.
Painter Helen Frankenthaler provides an example ofhow this occurred as slr e
expressed her concerns in the Nell' York Times in July of 1989.
When I \Vas appointcd to the advisory (;ouncil ofthe National Endow­
ment for Ihe A rts, I understood tbat lh e co ullciJ received it:> cha rlcr
from t hc Federal government. It functions as <111 a ulOl1o lll t)us bod y
dc vo led lo the pursuit am.I supporl o/' qu;¡ lil y ill lite arl ¡¡ntl c ul lure
uf A mc rica pa<;1, presenl, anJ fUlurt!.
' '1 (\
N Jr,' ¡ f , J 1./\ J I N (: IJ 1: v 1¡\ N f ' I "N I I N ( lit [\-1 " r IVI I Y
. .. 1, 1'01 lllll', \Vllllld nol wallllo slIpporl thl'lwo arlisls I1lentioned,
hlll om:e ~lIppmted , \Ve musl allmv Ihelll lo be sl!own . With all the
fllss.1 Ilrink a llllmher nI' crucial poinls have to be made.
Grallled, \Ve are "red" by Government permit and budgets, but
ccnsnrship and Govern11lent interference in the directions and stand­
ards 01' arl arc dangerous and not part ofthe democratic process... . Ir
Ilrat healthy atmosphere is censored or dictated , the Jife of every
citizen is at stake....
But lherc are other issues in these pa rticular cases. It is heart­
brcaking both as an artist and as a taxpayer(!), for me ro make these
rcmarks. and as a painter on the council 1 find myself in a bind:
Congress in a censoring lIproar on one hand and, alas, a mediocre
art cnterprise on the other! Sad, indeed.
By "mediocre art enterprise" 1 mcan: Has the council run its
course in terms of doing a necessary quality job? Shollld it change its
course from within? Is it possiblc? I myself find the counci l- the
recommendations of the panels and the grants given- o f dubious
quality. Is the council , once a helping hand, now beginning to spawn
an art monster? Do \Ve lose art along the way, in the guise of clldors­
ing cxperimentaotion? ...
Despite the deserved grants, I see more and more non-deserving
recipients. I feel there was a time when I experienccd loftier minds,
relatively unloaded with politics, fashion and chic. They encouraged
the endurance of a great tradition and proteeted important devel­
opment in the arts. I reca]) spirited, producüve discussions and
arguments.
Natura])y, it is assumed that many of us often fcel aghast at some
uf the awards, but 1 feel that way more and more, and I am not
alone. Have \Ve "had it"- like many, now defunct, once productive,
agencies?
(Fmnke nthaler 1989)
Tire elite consensus \Vas built not along the lines of tbose for or against arts
IlIllding but fr0111 the vie\Vpoint that American art and culture had become
"Ill' 01' increasingly questionable quality. One can only assume this disinte­
)J la lion of culture is a result of the increasingly blurred distinctions between
IlO)Hrlar culture and high art amI the contillued inclusion of multicllltural
mlllenl, which 01'ten deals specifically \Vith identity issues and challenges the
\' I ~wcr lo look al clllturally constructed assumptions about these.
\ 1I1sc ns lls aro und the misusc (JI' government funds occurred throllgh a
~',!.! lIcral l11isundersta nd ing 01' l.:ol1l crn porary éut. The complexities 01' artistic
·pcl·ia li/.alions anJ Ihe pa ra J il' l\ls ' !rey e:qm:ss cann01 be ul1c1erstood and
'Iil iqucd hy imn l\!dial c jlld¡rmellh 111\: val lle is nOI al ways self-cvident,
IlIplI)'lI ll1c rcasOII:; tÚ I di~ ll li.,:-; , rlllI l l , II I' p l';l r 1, \ be. Si1l1 plislic inlcrpn.:t'll ioll!-l
'?'I

l ~aVl 1111: \ icwel Iw.e rt , huI Ihe skilh nc~'dcd 11' 1II ,d,t.'. l lIllIre L:olllpkll' I'cadillg
l'1I1bL:d dcd illllhscul'¡; lan gllag~ a lllllhO l1¡,! hl p r lll:l:SSl:S. Currenl <l rl Iheory
l il e
aSSlI lIlCS, lo quote all nflieial or the Hirshhnrn MlISCUIll in Washinglo n, 1).(' .,
llla l ;.t rI " ortcn dcals wilh extrcmilics of the Iluman GOndition. It is nul lo be
c,xpn;lcd Iha l . . . cvcryone is going to be pleased or happ y with iL" The ni­
lc rion ora l t lhus becomes its ability to outrage, to (in the H irshhorn officia l's
worLls) " really touch raw nerves" (Lip11lan 1989, in Bolton 1992: 41).
Thus, social conservatives tapped into a ripe place for public outrage.'¡
Signilicanl social conscnsus bctween the elite groups privy to this argument
cenlred on the disdain for public funding of SUL:h art a nd fou nd that the fu nd­
ing o r Ihis art and the art itself were outright affronts o n taxpa yers' ex peeta­
Iions. A rtists , politieians, rcligious leaders, and the media were all surprised
al lhc power of art to L:ausc up heaval in moral and sodal sensibilities.
Conlinued /abe/ling
rllc performance artists discussed a bove served as targets of the Right for the
L:ontinucd process of labclling needed to further take control 01' the social
drama and so lid ify the institutional mechanisms to contain it. After the initial
attaá on Mapplethorpe and Serrano, social conservatives dosely scrutin­
izcd other uses of NEA funds calling attention to Karen Finley. Tim Miller,
Holly H ughes and John Flcá. The NP.A recalled grants given to these four
performance artists and they became the object 01' L:ontinued controversy
over free speech , the definition 01' obscenity and the use of government funds
for art.
111.1'1 i Il/l iOl1al il11fJ/emenl a 1ions
Social conservatives were succcssful in creating a public controversy and a
climate of fear for artists a nd arts presenters as weH as imposin g restrictions
on the arts in the u s, but they did not easily define and control what kinds of
values were regarded as central and important to the majority of Americans.
A poli taken in 1990 revealed that mosl U nited States citizens believed that
even if they were offended by particular illlages, others had the right to view
them , and supported the National Endowment for the Arts a gainst fundin g
cuts and other restrictions (Poli by Forecast, ,1ncorporated , J uly 13, 1990, see
Bolton 1992: 249), hence revealing a disjuncture betwee n the power and
interests of the rule-makers and the overaH beliefs of the population .
Despite the voice of the populous siding in favour of artists and gove rn ­
ment funding of the arts, real economic sanctions did take place, D uring J uly
of 1989, a sYlllbolic cul of $45,000 was implclllented lo the NEA b udget as
p unishment for eq ui valent funding lo Serrano a nd Ihe Mapplcthorpe retro­
specti vc. Indi vidual a rt isl gra nls were eli mi natcd in I I)().\ :l11d t he N.~A bu d ge l
í'x
NI ~ f:II II /' n N(j I} I V I I\NI; I! "N Il Ntllt M" I I V II y
wa '" ('ul ill hall h :lwcc ll 1990 and liNK lo a Icvcl llr $IJX milli ün . Each yea r a
ha llll' CI1SUl'S in ( 'o llg n:ss when Ihe Il cg o lialinn rol' Ihe NI :A budget is on the
IIIH)r.
Tllc arg ulllent over m ts fUllding and Ihe crisis over the renewal 01' valucs
\Vas nol resolved in a ny casy or clean way for eilher group. Senator Jesse
I klllls's 1989 ~lbscenity c1ause JO suggesled restrictions against arls fundin g
alld dcnieu support for artwork deemed objectionable. A year later an inde­
Jl('ndcnt cOlllmission investigating the gran tmakin g procedures <lt the -,.r¡¡A
lI'collll1lcnded that the Helms amcndment be disregarded as the "N I:A is an
illappropriale tribunal for the legal determination of obscenity" (Bolton
I'N2: 3(0). Further reforms for the NrA were recommended by the commi s­
sion al that lime to ensure more clear crileria for arts fundin g.
The 1998 Supreme Court deeision Fin/ey v. N EA finalized this social drama
hy dctermining the fate of the governmental role in funding the arts. The
SlIprcmc Court sided in favour of the NEA in withdrawing grants from
tilllJ' performance artists and upheld Helms's o bsL:enity clause , leavin g the
ddinition 01' obscenity to be scttled by the NtA at any given time. " Bul this
decision did not condude the outcome 01' how individuals with alterna­
I ive delinitions of normalivity attempted to renew society in other cultural
Ircnas. The right-wing " harbingers of morality " were sUL:cessful in control­
ling lhe publiL: controversy and creating él climate of fear for artisls and arts
prcsenters as ",ell as imposing restrictions on the arts in the USo But, they did
1101 easily defi ne a nd control what kinds 01' values were regarded as L:enlral
:md important to the majority of Americans. Nor did they curtail the at­
IL'mpts made by artists lo effcct social change to\vards incrcased pluralism
ami social awareness of alternative modes 01' thinking and marginal social
i(klltities.
Artists try other techniques
Ill'I'e I discuss the performance practices ofthree artists who are intercsted in
social change, but do so in a less radical way than the artisls I mentioned
previollsl y. l:> These artists negotiate boundaries by usin g interactive pcd­
agogical strategies -· listening, then pushing, Ihen pulling back and knowing
Ihe contcxt in which change is possible. Thcy understand the power of art
IIlaking as a tool for both individual and social change, and they walk the line
hctwccll mak ing art consistin g of more overt confrontations and using their
skills lo slIbtly disrupl social boulldarics.
\{a y Lan ge nbach , an American-born arti st living and teaching in Singa­
IUlIC, uses lhe mOlllcnl or cha o s/cri sis liminality ror potential change, hui he
d m:1O Ih ll CXpcd lo he able lo speu k lo a h roaJ audience with his wo rk. " 1 see
Itly pcrl'\' nn ,, "cc as somchow h.... III!· ahl c In ll ave a n i mp~IL:I in a limited
r'lI rt gc. , .. Wl' hCL:ol1lc Sl r'\)ll l!l'l by l'll ll\l llill P 1111 r:-¡\:!vcs" (pcrsllmtl in lCrv icw).
' ,/1.1
 \ l' 11 ¡\ I i\ ,( 1'/\ N 1.1 " I; lq ' lllI M ¡\ N (' , ¡\ I(
Lal\ gullha~ h IISl'S lhl: pl:rlilfTYlalln : pla I 1'111111 lo ¡;ha lh:ngu Iik¡;-Illilldeo and
l ik e-ctl u~al¡;d
intl ivitlu uls .
In a pcrforman¡;e al lhe 1996 Pcnn Sla tc SYll1pOSill111 for C ullllrc, Perfor1l1­
am:e Art ano Pedagogy, Langenbach challenged lhe mostly white, mitldle­
dass, highly eoucateo audience by crealing a situalioll 01' lIncerlainty among
the conference presenten;. Sending letters from a Si ngapOrCaTl artisl, wbich
con lained condemnations about the hegemonic nature 01' the US a rt world
and veiled threats, to each of the conference presenters, he ereated a stir
among those in the inside circles of lhe confereu ce. A buzz over these threat,
occured through gossip nctwork~ . La ngenbach 's formal presentation took
place on the last evenin g 01' the conference in the man ner of a highly theoret­
ical monologue de1ivered in a milita ris ticall y fascist fa shion. The meanillg 01'
the words was hard to eomprehend bccause the delivery was intensc1y focu sed
and engaged in a high levc1 01' theory . Many of the auoience members fe11
alienated and angry as a result. M ost did not real ize the connection between
the earlier \ctter and the staged performance.
The meaning of the entire performance became clear in an informal dia­
logue at the post-performance receplion when Langenbach and a group 01'
other performance artists in attendance put all their interpretatiolls together.
After much heated dialogue , Langenbach revealed his intentions to scath­
ingly critique US cultural aUlhority in the world and the seemingly unified
assumptions of the art world . He presented his criti q ue as someone with the
same cultural skills as most of the artists in attendance but shattered these
assumptions of a unified art world discoursc and intention when his perform­
ance justified fascism oThus, he called attention to the way performance artisls
reproduce a hegemonic discourse even when they disrupt sllch dominant
representations. De1ivering this presentation to a less sophisticated audience
\vould have led to cven further misunderstanding and outrage. To Langenbach,
the art becomes ineffective when it is presented to inappropriate audiences
and taken out of a certain ran ge. He speaks to the audiences \Vith whom he ls
most connected in order to effect change there; when there is less of a soci al
distance betwecn artist and audience , there is less resistancc to the message
being given. By working within one identity location- -here that of the art
\Vorld- rather than speaking to audiences across different perspectivalloca­
tions, Langenbach finds the technique of boundary crossing most effective
when there is a limitcd range of differences between artist and alldience. T his
performance had a limited influence on a like-minded audience, but it was
eye-opening to the artists in attendance beca use it too k them off gua rd,
provided a new perspective from which to view lhe relationship between lhe
artist and the world of cultural production and allowed artis ts to critiq uc
their own re1 ationshi p to global product io n 01' a rt. Langenbach li mi ts bouno­
ary erossing to sellings where individua ls wi ll be 11 10 re rcccplivc lo engaging
in the themes of lhe pcrforma nüC a nd be enlighlcncd hy il IhrOUJ.!h the lahoUl
01" undcr:;ta no ing il.
:-10
1 NI 1, 11 11 \ 11 NI; '" ~ V 1,' NI.' , ., N" NIIH 1\1" 1 IV I I , .
\Vcll d y MIlI I is, a Millll~a r,~l i s pl' r1n rnlllllcc arlisl/chorcographcr, tcaches
all ami l' {)n ~ l1lt s In various organ i¡raliolls. Shc uses her skills as an artist to
hdp corp()ratiol1s with vario LIS issu e~ at hand.
W.M.: I lcnd to find roles within institutions where I gel to have
my own creative inlluence.
B.W: Isn 't that threatening to them , sometimes?
W.M .: That has not been my experience . . .. I have Ica rned a [great
deal] from lhe work 01'] Liz Lehrman [froro W ashington ,
D.C.] ... She's got one company called " Dancers of the
Third Age" which is made of a1l seniors. Liz does a lot of
teaching and I remember her saying once that if she goes in
and she's working with a group of people and she's coming
up with resistance, it 's because she missed a step somewhere
along the line. She skipped something. She didn ' t break
things down. I think that if 1 come up with resistance it's
because I missed something. It's like I' ve gone too­ farther
than they were ready to go.
MOrTis uses her knowledge derived from different groups of people.
So part of it is working with organizations depending on where the
organizalion is al. .. . I did a session with these-I mean these are
insurance brokers who are owning the country.. .. One time durin g
a break , I noticed they started to get tight in their abdomens... . We
were just gossiping about office stuff, and I noticed a man's root
tapping. And while we were talking, carrying on this convcrsatio n
.. . without anyone noticing it , I just had a Iittle ball in my pocket
and I slid it on the floor to him . I dropped it on the floor and I kicked
il to him. Meanwhile they ' re carrying on this conversation and he
kicked it back to me. I kicked it to him again. Hc kicked it to
somebody clse. And then another one. five minutes la ter, without
anyone knowing how it happened , there's fiftecn people in the room
running everywhere, twenty balls on the f1oor , kicking them back
and forth and somebody said, " how did this happen'?" This is , you
know, this was their bathroom break ... and so ies all about look­
ing for whcre the point ofopening is. You knO\v , that's all the skills
of itnprovisation. The body gestures are dues.
Morris uses her skills as él da ncer lo pay attention to e\ements outside the
l10rmal ra nge l) f \ i~i on. Shc is ahle lo tlcglJl iale between knowing how muc h
In pllsh a llo ill wll al d ireclio n <1 l1d sll.:ppi ng hU l~k.
'hlk ill~ a mu re d islallccd rcl;l\ l'd Il ppl oad l, Ii kc Morri:; úocs. may not get
IIII II¡.'.S d Oll e will! as 1I1111'h c1nllIHl 01 \ 11'" 111 01 l"f~'a l c a l1 a liona l c risis, hut lit is
 V I SUA l ARI .... NI) l'IJI{l l l) lt M J\N' ." 1\ lt l
appruach starls frolll lhl' J)lacl: \'vill:IU tlll' pil ltil'ipil lIlS a llJ a ud icl1 ces a n.:
able lo begin lhe process 01' b uilding IWW a W4I n; tll~::;S and unJerl> landillg.
These openings dirtcr from place to place in a Illlllticultllral soéid y. Worki n¡!
in corporations may on ly allow individuals to simply fed more creative anO
may enable them to contin ue to work from the same basic ass urnptio ns aboul
entitlement and indi vi dua lism that th e more radical a nd oe via n tized art ists
condemn. Bue this technique of Llsing the context of tne sit uation at hand lO
determine the amount 01' Jistance an artist can go in pushing an agenda is
useflll in understanding the relationship between bOllndaries a nd resista nce.
Jt may help those interesteJ in moving towards greater social change to un de r­
mine resistances and stalemates.
To other performan ce artists, the teaching process is integral to w bat
making art is all about. Charles Garoian, a p rofessor at Penn State, thi n ks of
his site of art production as the c1assroolll. Perform ance to him is
done within the context 01' academia [rather than the art world or
alone in one's studio] in order to basically question and critique the
structures 01' learning that tend to inscribe themselves on the bodies
of lhe students. [When 1 first started teaching] the only thing that
ca me out of my mouth was, "Look, you guys. I know a little bit
about art and that's what I've been studying for several years no\V .
You gllys know a lot about your lives a nd your cultures, and so what
we' re going to do is Iearn from each other. " And , therein lies the
basis for my teaching, in that I began to realize that the best way to
get my kids to get creative was to make room for their own cultural
identities, their own memories amI histories anJ other things that
they were studying, their experiences as a whole. That \Vas going to
be the only way to get them to think critically and creatively, to
create works 01' art that were meaningful.
Garoian uses performance art as a way to get students to understand their
own stories allll to sho\V them \Vhat it means to be collaborative. In a society
so fully invested in competitive strategies, collaboration can be a stepping
stone for social and political cognizance. Garoian developed his performancc
pedagogy while teaching high school art:
Performance became el way ofcontesting the assumptions ofhistory.
[One example 01' doing this was] tho ice piece .... Thero were fj"e
tons 01' ice delivered to the sch ool on the particula r mom ing. The
admini stration called me on the ca rpel ... beca use I \Vas dis rupting
c1asses, and I sa id. " Well , the sculpture stuucnls a nJ I . .. have been
working in plastcr, we've becn wo rking in w~)od lInd melal anJ now
we're bcginning to talk a ho ut the cr hcmcr.'1 1\,'(mdili oll:> \l f ar!. . . . You
knew qlll~s li oni ll g whelhcr o r 1I11lllh jccls (Hlllhl h ) h~' lllu dl' tnlusl I'or
,)< ,
Nl l !,II'1 1.\ t' IN(; '1 I' V I AN" " i\Nlj N fl H MA I I VI T Y
celllu ries \'r wlll' l her SO 111 el h ing 1ha I was crhclllcra I could funclion
as an arl wu rk . OkayT So I al ways prescnted my administrators the
ralionale as it was a n opportunity to educatc thcm. In lUuch the same
\Vay that Suzan.ne Lacy has worked \Vith the public policy-makers.
.. . I lerc is an opportunity for me not only to educate students anJ
myself but also to educate lhe administrators to think about larger
ramifications 01' a rt within the culture at large, but more importantly,
within the context 01' the curriculum of the school.
And , they got it. And you know, five tons 01' ice showed up that
morning and the students had to decide. bascJ on the way ... beca use
we asked for the water to be frozen in any shape or form , anJ people
pul it in plastic bags, they put it in milk cartons, they put it in plastic
buckets, so \Ve had all these different shapes anJ the students had to
come up with some sort 01' an architectonic form in order to assem­
ble all these parts. Well , at nrst it was one big pile, then they realized
that they weren ' t really taking advantage 01' the shapes, so they in a
sense created a wall, a wall that was transparent and a \Vall that \Vas
melting away.
Rather than looking at art as merely this kind of discipline-based
enterprise within the school, o ne that was most often marginalized
within the context of the curriculum , that it had to go underground
and work in ways that one \Vould not expect. You know , no one
wOLlld have guessod that \Ve were doing anything but monkey busi­
ness or playing around like a bunch of k ids until nnally the rationale
01' ephemerality \Vas presented . That rationale was too strong. But
that becamc an underground means in order to question the very
stability of what curriculum is all about. In other words. just as a
bronze sculpture willlast thirty thousand years, so does a curriculum
last for; you k nO\",., it comes across in a very structured manner to the
point whero it's no! even permcated by any kind of human life.
Using the art making process to create metaphors for social life allows
students to start to qucstion basic assumptions about what is given to them.
as wdl as to question the role of authority in providing the normative
deflnitions 01' reality. Garoian 's art making and teaching strategies bring ne\\'
IInderstanding to the students, lhe school aJministration , and the community
who brought the ice. By giving lhe rationale 01' the project anJ framing it
pedagogically, the school administration Jid not nnJ it threa tening, but
fúund lheir own opening ¡nto it.
Pcr fo nl1<JI1ce <lrt methous shapc lhe uynamics 01' power in society by pull­
in g lhe ra w mHterials inlu a rcas Iw l IIsually (oucheJ by art. A rtists use
pcrfurm am:l: a rl I1lcthod:; d ifh-ll'1I 1l y .1I':I<1SS lhe various contexts in which
Ihey cxisl. PllrfunllanCI! al I a" ¡\ In:11l1iq lll' lo il11rlc men t social cha ngo is
lI1an ifcslcd bolh within 1l(ll l11 al 1'11 t1 lid 01 fICS , plI yi n!! l:arL~ ful atlcnlion lo tlle
'lO
 \' J!.. I I /1. I /1. lt I I\~'¡ I NEt711 11 \ II N II 1>I : Vf "Nj ' l
contCX I ~1 11J Lh(.: /11 o lllcll l whl.!l'c apPw pl i;lt ,' ;(," 1<111 cal! lu kl! "Iaú! , unJ n: fus­
ing lhe vcry nOl ioll 01' no n nality. Wl u.:n lIl t is l,,"en 0111 01' ils imml'di,,1L:
context and lhe audience fo r which it was c rcu ted, Ihe stakes l'ür ilS reccptio n
and understanding increase. Using performance art/lif'c tcchniques redefines
wha t is known as sacred by opening up the taboos surround ing it. Work in
this realm can be relatively smooth, with the use 01' a p pro priate bounda ries
and expectations about relative inn uence, understanding the contexl and the
Jimits embedded there, and the use of a clear rationale. Or, it can be con fro n­
tational and jarring, with the inlentions of L1sing shock value to provoke
changes in social groups who resist these changes. Changing society depends
on \Vorking al differcnt paces in many different a renas.
Conclusion
Through these examples we see the way artists use boundary crossing tech­
niques to both crea te erises and invoke more subtle cbanges in personal a nd
comm unity belief systems. Several kinds 01' q uestions occur as a result 01' this
discussion. Does art cause social change? Does social change depend 011
deviance? Is boundary crossing an integral part of the way artists attempt
social change?
The more radical artists discLlssed here did cause social change in the form
01' provoking a social drama , calling attention to themselves and the meaning
and definition of art. But the changes that occurred were not necessarily lhe
ones they had intended . Arts funding was the target. However, artists were
successful in pushing their agenda and pushing the acceptable limits 01' public
discussion of sexuality and representations 01' alternative sexualities in the
mass media and the wider culture generally. For instance, gay and lesbian
lifestyles were depicted on prime-time television when women were shown
kissing.
In terms 01' arts fllnding, the historical avant garde held a goal 01' bringi ng
art back into life and ending its separate status as a patronized part of an el ite
art world institution. In terms of this goal, artists were successful at Ill a king
new links between popular culture and the art world and at attacking the
institution and elite definition 01' art. The result of this is mixed. On one ha nd ,
funding of art is now held to a stricter standard , there is less money available,
and the status of art has diminished. On the other hand, more diversity is
acceptable in po pular representations. When postmodern identity-based in­
dividuals, socialized in a mediatized, fluid and Illomentary cu ltllre, come into
contact with Illodernist hierarchies, a conflict over central social values occu rs.
Radical artists accomplished a goal of killing the institlltion of art by gettinl:!
defunded , bri nging the work into the real m 01' lhe soci al. political a mI lite
personal. Wh at was once uefi ncd <l,,"; devian t (loro::>:; s\lcicly is now ol1 ly dehncu
a s such by a small gro up who happen lo inha hif r llw¡,;rl'ul soci ul posit ions,
Because 0 1' Olis, dclini tio ns 0 1' d cnHlcra..:y ~ h (l"l d :11"10 l'(IfJW II IlUC I' sCI'IILi ny .
)<;,1
"NI) N ()H M AII VI IY
\VII,:II al tisIS ,'()lIlillllt~ to cr¡,;aLc works 11r.. 1 c1wlknge tak¡,;n-for-granted
:lSSLlmplÍlll1S abo ut Llrl! wider social Jife or in smaJler occupat ional settings,
Ihe work ()fsm:ial changc conLinues. Even the most min ute in crease in aware­
IIt'SS Illay be part or a larger errort to gain further equality, if all awareness
kads lo increased social juslice. But this remains a question for díscussion
:llld future research.
Notes
Though the licld 01' performance art is very diwrse and has become more so since
the 1989- 90 debates over arts l'unding, my definition 01' performa nce art here rests
011 the particular form of perfo rmance art that became most visible at that tim e.
Since that timc perfo rmance an has burgco ned alld has, as is the case when a ny
"vant garde art becomes widely accepted and practiscd, becorne less radical and
shocking. I will discuss so me of these adaptations at the end ofthis papel'. Firstly ,
however, 1 focu s on th e detlni ti on 01' performance art during the late 1980s an o
early 1990s, which denoted intcnlional no rm reversal practices. Performél11ce art
has become a term which den otes a broad range 01' art , theatre, dance activities,
1110st 01' that are not interested in shocking a nd reviling audiences.
2 Moral panics, Iike social dram as, "serve as a mechanism for simultaneousl y
strengthelling and redrawing society's moral boundaries- that tine betwecn mor­
alily and ill1ll1oratily , just wllere one lca ves the territory of good and enters that of
evil" (Goode 1994: 52). The dilTerence between the t\\'o concepts ties primarily
il1 th e use 01' devianee. For Goode an d Ben-Yehuda, m oral panics are negotiations
of deviance. Turner, on the other hand, sces th e crises in social dramas as mechan­
isms for defining normativity . I use them as two sides 01' the same coin.
:1 The ac tions 01' performancc art ists are similar to subcultural resistance to domina­
tion as described by Hall an d his colleagues in their \Y ork on British yo uth culture .
Hall el a l. discuss subcultures and resistancc to he gc monic social controls as a
result of class locati ons, but artists hold a very paradoxical class location in
contemporary society which cannOI be solely desoribcd as \\'orking cla ss. Bourdieu
(1993) best cxplains the particular class locati on of artists as bcing the " domin­
ated among the dominant," caught in the d o uble bind of an "eco nomic system
I'eversed." Tradition all y, when an avant garde anist makes a large sum of money ,
the artistic value ol' her wo rk diminishcs as she " sells out" to the "profa ne" values
01' Ihe rnundane ecol1omic \Vorld . Though artists in contemporary LIS society have
mostly overturned this notion , the ro le of artists, especially performance a rtists , is
slill cclUght between class locations, and either held up as geniu s or dismissed as
Illadlless. This dichotom ous position 01' artists in society is still a tension despite
recent changes in both economic conditions alld technologica l advances. Perform­
ance artisls are ofte n opposed \O the commoditlcatioll 01' a rt , which in turo plaees
Ihem in this ditist 110tioll that art is beyond 01' above ulilily and practicalil Y.
Perfo rmance "rtists generally crea te th eir work withoUI Inuch pay a nd are rarely
able to make a livin g froln il. In faet , performance an ists often ad voca tc a regular
day job as cenlra l lo thcir cOlllmitmcnt or kecping art outside of Ihe cornmodity
culture. Thc aCliolls 01' ra dica l ¡¡ rt.ist s rely on a rcsistance to thc dominan! c ulture.
Th us thc class locatioll nI" pcrf'o rlllll ncc ur tisl s, thou gh differe nt in some crucial
wuys 1"1'\1I11 wOl'king, c1a ss )'(l Lll h c llltlll'c, ~ tilll'all be 1I1lderstood in Il.a ll 's Icrms.
.1 1he AIDS C:o;¡\ itioll to l l llk:l~ h P( ,w,'r 1:; a p:a y acl ivist group Ihat uses public
pli rlú rl11allC:cs us part .11' il S ~t l: II' T V 1'''1 :,IIl1vc nill g AIDS discrilll inatioll (see
K i ~tc l1"crJ!. II)L) ~)
'H
 VI 'm 1\ r " N t' I \ It 1
5 SOl1le, bul nol all, of Ihis w Il rk 1 ~(c i Vt' d m il " ! I II ~ ', IIJ 'I'III I rr'Hl! Iill' Nalio",,1
Endo\Vment ro r the Arts. Ka rl'1I I'illley, I loll y 111 11'111'\ ¡"" Millcr ;lllll.hlhll I''lcek
had their NEA grants re~cirtded b<:<:ause 01' lhe ll " ~ ;I' 01 cx plicil sex ual "'ateria!s.
They beeallle known as the " N EA Four" beca use uf Iileir suil against lhe NI~A
and their ehallenge to Jesse J-Ielms's 1989 al1lendl1lent lo Ihe NEA g uidelines
which inc1udc:d an "obscenity eluuse" which pro hibits the funding of " obscenitics"
as a rt.
6 The relative power betwcen various socia l groups is important to highlight here.
Though some suy marginal gro up s hold a powerfu l social positio" in this case, lÍt
lies prjmarily in the powe r ofthreat through words and symbo ls anu is not backeu
up by institutional power.
7 F rol1l ¡¡ Cunc\ionalist perspceti \ e a normative o rder of society exists around a set
of core va lues. l argue along with Fouea ult ( Foueault 1979) that these normati ve
values are continuall y being contested , revised, asserted anu appropriated. Anu,
while it may appear that dominant va lues remain pervasivc, they a re "ot static and
unified nor are they resistant to sub ve rsion.
8 The 1990s conflicts about mt and government support oCthe arts are no! ne\V. The
National Endowment for the Arts has been controversial sinee its inception beca use
the Puritan history ofthe Un ited Sta tes makes support ofthe arts suspect. When
theimplementation of arb funding beca me manifest , it \Vas a response to the fear
of falling behind in the Cold War competition (Ayers 1992) and an attempt to use
the symbolic as a force for politica l power. COflsensus for the idea of national
Sllpport for cu ltural production oce ured when conservatives could see the utilitar­
ian vallle in using cu ltural prominence to assert authority over t he R ussians. The
National Endowment for the Arts was establisheu in 1965 alld grew to a blldget of
171.22 million in 1990 (Bo lt on 1992).
9 1t could be argued that the photographers and performance artists in qllestion
here were also tapping into this public sentiment , trying to ereate spectade to eall
attention to themselves and to tap into public outrage about ineqLlality. Several
crucial points show the distjnetion between these two arenas. 1) Art is made within
an "art frame." Things that are ealled art are traditionally kept sacred and separ­
ate from the regular workings 01' ralionul soeiety. 2) Art is viewed and llnderstood
from a different set ofassumptions than is public policy. Contemporary ar! works
form the notion that , even though it looks and feels to rhe viewer Iike it is " real
life" it is not , even though it is pla yin g with this distinction and prefers to remain
ambiguous in its contemporary forllls. More th an likely it is aski.ng the viewer to
look beyond what appears to be happening in the speeific art pieee and to question
the underlying cantent and assumptions involved both in the mt anu the readion
to il. 3) Senators are expecteu to be rationaL. thoughtful , non-erratic individua ls
who eallupon logic of dcmocraey to support their arguments. Religi o us fervour is
to be kept separate from policy analysis.
10 1t stated , " None 01' the Cunds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this Ad
may be used to promote, disseminate, or produce 1) obseene or indecent materials,
inc1uding but no t limited to uepictions of sadomasoehism , homoerotieism. the
exploitation of ehildren , or individuals engaged in sex acts ; 01' 2) malerial which
denigrates the objects 01' beliefs 01' the adherents 01' a particular religion or non­
religion: or 3) material which denigrates. debasc:s. or reviles a persono grollp, or
class ofcitizens on the basis of raee, creed , sex , handicap, age, or national originO'
(Bo lton 1992: 347).
1I Aeeording to Nina Totenberg on N alion a l Public Radio (M ,Il'l'h 31. 19(8) (his \Vas
a " lose- lose situation " fm the NEJ\ beeaLlse CVC II ir Ihe Su pn!Jl1e C Ollrl sided in
ravour of the contin ued ro le 01' govCrTllllCnl in fUlldi,,!, rice s pel'l'h, incvilably
'N t,
" N-'Y N' lit M ¡\ I 1 V I I '
(" nll ¡l reli~ ;",,1 Ih II /-I h l-win j,t (llllld,ls w<lllld l'lllllillUC lo had.. away al Ihe NI ~A.
l :vl'lIlh()U t~ h Ihe N I ~ A halol lhc righllo decide ils <lwn ddinit ilin llt'obscc nity, as a
gove rnllll:nl agency il would be sllbject lo eontinued p ub lie dispules sha ped by a
Clll1S11rvativc COITllllOn denominalor.
12 The dala a re laken fro m a snowball samplc oC thirty arti sts interviewed between
1994 and 1997 and ethnograph ic obscrvations cond ucted dllrillg th a! same time in
a variety oC locatiolls \Vhere performance (irt was being prcsented and discussed.
¡\lIlhe artists gave pennission to be known by name.
References
Alexander, J. 1988 . " Culture alld Po litical Crisis: 'Waterga te' and D urk heimian Soci­
ology. " Dllrkheünia/1 S ocio!ogy: CU!fUro! SLUdies, J . A lexander (ed.). C am bridge:
Cambridge Universi ty Press: 187- 224.
Ayers, S. M. 1992. Tlie Se!ee/ion Proces.l' 0./ /h e NlI /iol1a! Elldowm cn/ ¡ár /h e Ar/s
Th ear.er Progral/'/: A/1 His/orimIlCri/¿ca! S lUdy . New York: Peter Lang.
Becker, H. 1963. Ou/sider,I': S/udies in /he Socio!ogy o/ De!'ial1ce. New York: The Free
Press.
Benjamin , W. 1968. JllUlnina/iIJlls. New York: Schocken.
Blinderman, B. (Ed.) 1990. Darid ,rvoillo/'OlI'ic;;: TO/lgues o{ F!ame. Normal. IlIin ois:
Ulliversity Galleries IlIinois State lJniversity.
Bolton , R. (Ed.) 1992. Cu!/ure Wars: f)O('Uflli'll/ .I·./i'OI/'/ //¡e Recen/ Con/l'Ol'er.l'ies i/l lhe
Ar/.\'. New Yo rk: New Press.
Bourdieu. P. 1993. Tlu' Fie!d o/ Cultural Produc/ioll: I~·s.l'ays 011 Ar! am! Li/era/ure.
New York: Columbia U niversi ty Press.
Carr, C. 1993. "lJnspeakab le Practiees, Unnatu ral Aets: T he Taboo A rt of Karen
Finley. " AClÍl/g Out: Feminis/ P,eljámwlu·es. L. Hart and P. Phelan. Ann Arbor:
Univers ity of M ichigan Press: ,141 - 152.
Cohen , S. 1972 . Fo!k De !'i!s 1I/1(! ¡Hora! Pal1ics: The Crell/io/l o/ Mocls 1//1{! Ro('kers.
London: MaeGibbon allo Kee.
))avy, K. 1993. " From Lady Diek to Lauylike: The Work ofHoll y Hughes. " Ac/il1g
01.1/: Fell1il1is/ Per/iJrll1al1ces . P. P. Lynda llar\. Alln Arbor: U ni versity of Miehigan
Press: 55 - 84.
1:rikson , K. 1966 . Waj'lI'wd PI/ri/ans: A SlUdy in /h e Socio!ogy (J{ Del'il/llce. New
York : John Wiley and Sonso
Fin1cy . K. 1990. Letter to the Editor. Washing/on PO 'f/. Washington . o.e May 19,
1990.
1'- ollcault , M. 1979. IJiscip!ine (/I/(! Punis/¡ : The Bir/h 0//11 1' Prisol1. New York : Vintage
Books.
Frankcnthaler, 11. 1989. "Did We Spawn all Arts Monster?" Nell' York Times. New
York. July 17, 1989.
(¡oode. E . and N. 8ell- Yehuda, 1994. Mora! POllics: Th e Socia! COr/S/WC!iOIl o{
/)(')'ian(' c. Cambridge, M ass : nIaekwell Press.
Ilall. S. ¡¡lid T. Jcrtersoll , fEds.) I()7(¡ . Ue.l'i.l'/af1(,(' //¡rough Ri/ua!: You/h Suhcu!/ure.\ in
/'0.1'1-11'(/1' Bri/(/II/ Lnndon : Il a qXi " ( '( IllillS.
II<lrpn, (l . (Fd .) IC)()R . III/. TI" 'II /io/ls 1I11<!1'/'OI'O¡'(//iol1s: Conversa/io/1s 0/1 Ar/ Cul/ure
'/II1! }<(,.I'i.\'/(/I/I·(· . Alh<lll y NY St. II I' l lni Vl' I!\il V Ilr Nc w York I'rcss.
M?
 VI " IJ,\ I ,\ I( I ,\ N 1I l' I IU n 11 fII " N I I ¡\ \( r

Ilirsch , P. 1'J72. " l' n1l'cssiJlg I:ads aJld I'a slll llll" AH O lfl.I Jll/atillll se.t i\ u;tlysis 01"
Cultural Indllstry Sy~ tcI1lS." / //I/('ri("(/I/ ./111//"1/(/1 o/' S " l"iolo,l!.I' 77: h.l'> (5 1) .
Kclly . D. 11. (Ed.) 1993. Devil/It/ Bc/(((vior: A J"x/-Uc(/t!a ill /lIc .S'ociologl' uf Dl'l'i­
allce. Ne w York: St. Martin's Prcss.
Kistenberg, C. 1995. Al DS. Social Change anrl 1'hl'a/er. New York: Garland PlIblish­
ing lne.
Part 3

Lipman, S. 1989. Say No to Trash. N elV York Times. New Y ork. June 23, 1989.
Marsh, A . and J. K e nt, (Eds.) 1984. Live Arl: Aus/ra!ia (flld Arnerica. Adel a idc: i\nne
Marsh and Jan e Kent.
Nehring, N. 1993 . Flowers in lhe Dus/hin: Culture, Al1archy, (/nd Pos/lvar ¡';¡¡gllllld.
MED IA A N D TEC HN OLOG Y

Anll Arbor: U niversity of Miehigan Press.

Pfohl , S, 1994. !/I1oges (Jl De vial/ce (//ul Social COl/lrol: A Soóologiml His/ory. New
York: MeGraw-Hill.
Phelan, P. 1993. Unmarked: T/¡e Poliúcs oI Pe/jármonce. London: Routledge.
Ridless , R. 1984. Ideology and Ar/: TheoriesoIA1ass Cullureji"1JI11 Wal/a Bl'njamin/o
Umher/o Eco. Nc\V York: Peter Lang.
Schncider, R. 1997. T/¡e Explicit Bo!!y in Performance. London: Routlcdge.
Sellill. T. 1938. T/¡e Co/!/lic/ o/ Conduc/ Norms. A Reporl o( /he Suhcolr/l/1illee 011
f)elinqul'l1cy ofllle CO/llll1illee 011 Per.\{)/lolily and Cul/ure. New York: Social Science
Rcsearch Council Bulletin.
Surnner, C. 1994. T/¡e Sociology 01 Deviance: An OhilUO/y. New Y ork: COlltinuurn.
Turner, V. 1969. Tile Ritual Process: Structure and Anli-S/ruc/ure. Chicago: Aldinc.
Wagner-Pacifici. 1986. Tlle AIo/"() ¡'I/!omli'.)! Play: TerroriSII1 amI Social I)ruma. Chi­
cago: U niversily of Chicago Press.
Wheeler. B. B. 1997. 'Thc Perforrnance 01' Distance and Ihe Art 01' Catharsis: Per­
fonnance Art, Artists and Audience Response. " Tlle .!ollrlllll olAI"/.\· Monoge/1/en/.
Lml", 01111 Soóe/y Vo!. 27 (No. 1): ]7- 49.
Wojnarowicz. D. 1989. "Poslcards frorn i\rnerica: X-rays from Hel!." Willlesses
Exhihiliol1 Catalogue. New York: Arti sts' Space.

'~H
¡ I 11/1 '/110 IIII/f ¡1/1 't lft/ 1J {1m

82
FILM ANO THEATRE

Susan Sontag

:'\Ulm:c: nI(' {)rall/o Rel'ielv 11(1) (1%(,): 24 37.

The big question is whether there is an unbridgeable division ,

cvcn opposition , between the two arts. Is there somelhing genu­
incly "theatrieal," difrercnt in kind from what is genuincly
"cincmatic'''1
Almost al! opiniorr holds that there is. A commonplace of
discussion has it that film and theatre are distinct and even
antitnetical arts, each givi,ng rise to ils own standards ofjudg­
ment and canons 01' f0n11. Thus Erwin Panofsky argues, in his
celcbrated essay "Style and Medium in the MOli o n Piclurcs"
(1934, rewritten in 1946), that one of the criteria fo r eva luating
a movie is its freedom fr o m the impurities 01' th ea t ricali t y. To
talk about film , olle must ¡irsl define " Ihe basic nature of the
Illediu m ." Those who th ink prescriptively about the nature 0 1'
live dra ma , less confi de nt in the future 01' their (lrt Ihan the
cinéphiles in thcirs, rarely takc a comparably cxclusivist lineo

TI\(; history of cinema is often treated as the history of its emancipation

1'1'0111 theatrical models. First of all from theatrical "frontality" (lhe unm ov­
in/-', camera reprod ucing the situation of lhe spectator of a playnxed in his
~ca t), then from theatrical acting (gestures ncedlcssly stylized, exaggerated­
IIccdlessly, becallse now the actor eOllld be seen "c1ose up"), then frorn theatrical
rnrnishings (unneeessary "distancing" of the alldienee's ernotions, disregard­
ing the opportllnity to irnmerse the alldience in reality). Movies are regarded
;I~ advancing frorn theatrical stasis lo einernatic f1uidity , from theatrical
;lItiliciality to cinematic natllralncss and immediacy. But this view is far too
:,illlple.
S lI ch owr-si l11 p li(jc~lli o n l est ilil:s lo I h.: a mbiguous scope o f the camera
,,: yc . Uccausc Ih e cilml.! ra {'(/II he uscd lo JlI ojcct a relati vely passive, lIllselective
kll lll t\f visi un as wc ll as I h ~ 1t1 ~'l\ l y 'IdeClive (··cuitcu") visi o n gcncra1\ y

H} I
 MUIIIA IINU I'I Yi ' II NIi Il , i;\
assol'Í atl:d wilh lll(lviI,:sl'i n~ m !l is ¡¡ "lI lI'd ""II" as WI.; II ;I ~ al1 a rl, 111 the scn ~~
lh a t il can cncaps ula lc ally 01' li te pCI'I 'unrllllg alls and IC IHJcr il in a li lm
lranscriplion. (T his " medi um" or non-a rt illipccl ~ )I'lilnl attaineJ ils I'outinc
incarnation with the advenl 01' le1cvision. T herc , l11 ov ie~ them sclvcs hecamc
another pcrforming art lo be transcribed , miniaturized on film.) One ("([n film
a play or ballet or opera or spo rling event in such a way th at fil m becomes.
relatively speaking, a tra ns parency, a mi it seems correet to say t hat one is
seeing the event filmed . But thea tre is never a "medium ." T hus, becau$e one
can make a movie " of" a p lay but not a pla y "of" a movie, cinema had ao
carly but, I should argue, fortuitou!:i conoection with the stagc. Some of the
earliest films were film ed plays. D use and Bernhardt and Barrymorc are on
film- m aroo ncd in time, absurd , touching; there is a 1913 B ritish film of
Forbes-Robcrlson playing J lamlel, a 1923 German fil m of Olhelfo starri ng
Emil Jann iogs. More recently, the camera has "preserved" llelene Weigel 's
performance of MOlher Couruge with the Berliner Ensemble, the Livi ng
Theatre production of The Brig (fllmed by the Mekas brothers), and Peter
Brook 's staging of Weiss 's Marat/Sade .
But from the beginning, even withi n the confines of the notion of film as
a "medium" and lhe camera as a " recording" instrument, él grea t deal other
than what occurred in theatres was taken down. As with still photograph y,
sorne of the events captured on moving photographs were staged but others
were valued precisely beca use they were no{ staged- - the camera being the
witness, the invisible spectator, the invulnerable voyeuristic eye. (Perhaps
public happenings , " news," constitllte an intermediate case between staged
and unstaged events; but film as " newsreel" generally amounts to llsing film
as a "medium. ") To crea te on film a documenl of a transient reality is a
conception quite unrelated to the purposes ol'theatre. l t only appears related
when the "real event" being recorded is a theatrical performance. And the
first use of the motion picture camera \Vas to make a documentary record
of unstaged. casual reality: Louis Lumiere 's films ol' crowd-scenes in París
and New York made in the 1890's antedate any use of film in the service
01' plays.
The other paradigmatic non-theatrical use of film , which dates from the
earliest activity of the motion-picture camera, is for the creation of il/usion ,
the constructi on of fantasy. The pioneer figure here is, of course. Georges
Mélies. To be sure, Mélies (like many directors after him) conceived 01' the
rectangle of the screen on analogy with the proscenium stage. And not only
were the events staged; they were lhe very stuff of invention: imagin a ry
journeys, imaginary objects, physical metamorphoses. But this, even add in g
the fact that Mélies situated his camera "in front oC" the adion and ha rd ly
moved it , does not make his films theatrical in an inviJio us sense. lo lhcir
trcatmen t of pe rsons as lhings (physieal objects) a nd in thelr Jisj Ullclivc
presentation of time a nd space, M6lies' lilmstll'c q u il1 l CS~c l1 t ¡ally '\.:incrn alic"
so Car as there is slIch a lhinS.
'9'1
li ll M ANI) 1 111 ' 1'1 I IU
Ihe conl ras l bl'lww l1 Ihcalrc ami /ilm s is IIsu all y takcn lo lie in the rnah:rials
Icprcscn ted DI dcpictcJ . Bul exactly whcrc docs the dillcrence Jie?
1I's tempting lo draw a crudc boundary. Theatre deploys artifice while
vinclIl<L is committed to reality, in deed to an ultimately physica l reality which
is "redeemed. " to use Siegl'ried Kracaller's striking word , by the camera. The
acsthetic judgment that l'ollows this bit of intellectual ma p-making is that
lihns shot in rcal-Iife settings are better (i.e., more cinematic) than lhose
sltol in a studio (where one can dctect the difference). O bviously, if Flaherty
and ltaJian neo-realism and the cinema \lerilé of Ve rtov , Rouch , Marker,
:lIld Ruspoli are the preferred models , one would judge rather harshly the
pcriod of 100'1., studio-made films inaugurated around 1920 by The Cahincl
o( J)r. Caligari, films with ostentatiously artificial landscapes ami decor, and
dccm the right direction to be that taken at the same period in Sweden , where
lIIany films with strenuous natural settings were being shot " on location."
Thus, Panofsky attacks Dr. Caligari for "prestylizing reality ," amI urges upon
~:inema "the problcm ofmanipulating and shooting unstyli zed reality in such
a way that tbe result has style. "
But there is no reason to insist on a sin gle model fo r fil m. And it is helpl'ul
lo notice that, for rhe most part, the apotheosis of realism , the prcstige 01'
"Llnstylized reality, " in cinema is actual1y a covert political-moral positioll,
l'ilms have been rather too often acclaimed as the democratic art , the art
uf mass society. Once one takes this description very seriously, onc tends
(Jike Panofsky and Kracauer) to want movies to continue to renect their
migins in a vulgar level of the arts, to remain loyal to thci r vast uned ucated
audience. Thus, a vaguely Marxist orientation jibes with a fundament al tenet
111' romanticislTl . Cinema, at once high art and popular art, is cast as the art
01' the authentic. Theatre, by contras!' means dressing up, pretense, lies. It
slllacks ol' aristocralic taste and the c1ass socicty. Bchind the objection of
nitics to the stagey scts of Dr. Caligari, the improbable coslumes and florid
aCling of Renoir's Nana , the talkiness of Dreycr's Cerfl'ud, as " theatrical ," lay
Ihe feeling that such films were false , that they exhibited a sensibiJity both
pretentious ami reactionary which was out-of-step with the democratic and
lIIore mundane sensibility of modern life.
A nyway . whether aesthetic defect or not in the particular case, the syn­
Iltdic look in ftlms is not neccssarily a misplaced thcalricalism. From the
hcginning ol' ft lm history , there were painters and sculptors who c1aimed that
\'illcma 's true future resided in artifice, construction. It lay not in figurative
lIarration or slory-telling 01' an y kind (either in a relatively realistic or in a
"surrcalistic" vcin), but in a bstract illn. Thus. Theo van Docsburg in his essay
nI" 1929, "Film as Pu re Fo rm," cnvisagcs lihn as the vehicle of " optical poetry,"
" dynil miL li g.h t a rchltcL"lll rl!," " Ihe l:fl.;alilln DI" a moving ornamcnt. " F ilm s
will rculil.l.l ".Bm.:It's d n:a ll l n I' lillllill}' ;111 ll pt it:u l cq Llivalent fo r lhe tcmpo ral
sl rllclu l'C o¡'a IIIl1si ca l cllm p()~i lll ll l l'lIh \l. a kw 1i11ll-llIakcrs f~)(" ex alll ple,
11/\
 M i l I'" "'~ l i-ITl o II N IH IHi ' ,
Rllhcrl Bl cl:r t.:' Hl ljllIlC 1,) pmslIc Ih l-; !'tllIll'p llllll (jI lihll . a m i wh o IS lo say
ji is nOI cinemu.lic'!
C o uld anything be farlher I'rom Ihe scopc 01' lhé~¡t re lhan s lIch a dcgrcc llf'
abstraction? !t's importan t nol to answer thal 4ueslion loo qU1ck ly.
Sorne locate the di\lisio ll between theatre and film as the difference between
the play and Ihe filmscript. Panofsky derives this differenee from wh a l he
takes lo be the most profound one: the difference between the/ormaf cond i­
tions of seeing a play and those 01' seeing a movie, In the theatre, says Panofs ky,
"space is static, that is. the space represented on the stage, as well as the
spatial rela tion ofthe beholder to the spectacle, is unalterably fix ed." while in
the cinema " the spectator occllpies a fixed seat, but only physica lly, not as Ihe
subject 01' an aesthetic experience:' In t he cinema , the speclator is "aesthetic­
ally , . . in permanent motion as his eye identifies \Vith the len s of the camera,
which permanently shifts in distance and direction ."
Trlle enough. Bul the observation does not warrant a radical dissociation
01' thcatre from film. Like many critics, Panofsky is assuming a "Iiterary"
conception oftheatre. To a theatre which is conceived ofbasically as dramat­
ized literature, texts, words, he contrasts cinema which is. according to the
received phrase, primarily "a visual experience." In effect , we are being asked
to acknow1edge tacitly the period of silent films as definitive of cinema tic art
and to identify theatre with " plays," from Shakespeare lo Tennessee Williams,
But many of the most interesting movics today are not adeqllalely described
as images with sound addeo . Ano what if theatre is conceived 01' as m Ore
than, 01' something different from , plays?
Panofsky may be over-simplifying when he decries the theatrical taint in
movics, but he is sOllnd when he argues that, historically , theatre is only one
of the arts that feeds into cinema. As he remarks, it is apt that films ca rne
to be known popularly as moving piclUre.l' rather than as " photoplays" or
"scrcen plays, " Movies derive less from the Iheatre, from a performance art.
an art that already moves , Ihan they do from works of arl which were
stationary. Bad nineteenlh-century paintings and postcards, wax-works a
la Madame Tussaud , and comic strips are the sources Panofsky cites. What
is surprising is that he doesn 't connect movies with earlier narrative uses
01' still photography- like the family pholo-album. The narrative tech ni q ues
developed by certain ninetcenth-century nove1ists, as Eisenstein po intcd
out in his brilliant essay on Dickens , supplied still another prototypc ror
cinema,
Movies are images (usually photog raphs) that Illove. to be surco But Ihe
distinctive unit 01' films is not Ihe image but the pri ncipIe 01' co nnecli on
betwcen lhe ima ges, lhe re latíon 01' a "sho t" lo lhe one lhal preceded ii a nd
the one tha l comes artcL There is no pcc llJiarly '\: jlll'llIal ic" as opposed lo
" lhca lrica l" mode nI' lin kill l! images.
(/
nFt.1 ¡\ I 11r."Yifl
N ¡ -) ~
I'dl\ol sl.. y IIIC" lo 11I1IJ 111l' lilll: a ga lllsl Ihc 1IIl1111aliuII ur lhcalrc by cinema ,
;1 '0\Vd l as VI(;C \'ersa. 111 Ihe Ih ca lré. 1101 o n ly eall Ihe spcclalor nol change
hl" .lll gle of vision bulo ulllike 1Il0vics, "Ihe ~cttings 01' Ihe stagc cannol change
"111 ill g ulle ael (excepl rol' such incidentals as rising moons 01' gathering
dllllds and slll:h illegilimale reborrowings from film as turning wings or gliding
hackdrops)." Werc we to assent to this. the ideal play would be No Exil , the
Idcal sel a realistic living room or a blank stage .
No less dogmatic is lhe complementary dictllm about what is illegitimate in
hlrll s aceording to which , since films are " a visual experience," all compon­
l'lIls Illusl be demonslrably subordinate to Ihe ima ge. Thus, Panofsky asserts:
' Whcrever a poetic emotion. a musical outburst. 01' a literary coneeit (even , 1
alll gricved lo say , sorne 01' the wisecracks of Gro ucho Marx) entirely lose
I'ulllad \Vith visible movement , they strike the sensitive spectator as, literall y,
IHII or place," What. then , 01' the films of Bresson and Godard , with their
;dlusive, densely thoughtful texts and their characteristi c refusal to be visually
kautiflll? How couJd one explain the extraordinary rightness ofOzu's rclat­
ivdy immobilized camera'?
The decline in average quality offilms in the early sound period (compared
wilh the levcl reached by films in the 1920's) is undeniable , Although it wOLlld
he I'acile to call Ihe sheer uninterestingness of m ost films 01' this period simply
;r rcgression to theatre, it is a fact that film-makers did turn more frequcntly
lo plays in the 1930's than they had in Ihe precedin g decade, Countless
slage successes like OWlVard Boul1d. Dil1ner al Eight, Blilhe Spiril. Faisol1.1' un
U(:l'e. TlVentielh Century . Boudu Salivé des Eaux, She Done Hil11 Wrong, Al1l1o
( 'hri.l'tie, Morills, Animal Cracker,l', The Pelri/iee! Foresl, \Vere IlJmed. T he suc­
e l'SS of movie versions of plays is measured by the extcnt to which the script
Icarranges and displaces the action and deals less than respectfully with the
spokcn text- as do certain films of plays by Wilde and Shaw, the Olivier
Shakespeare films (at Ieast J-/enry V) , and Sjobcrg's Miss ./ulie, But the basic
disapproval of films which betray their origins in plays remains. A recent
~ .\alllple : the outright hosti lity which greeted Dreyer's latest film , Gertrud,
Nol only does Gerlrud. which 1 beJieve to be a minor masterpiece. follow a
lurn-or-the-century play that has characters conversing at 1ength and quite
IllI"ll1ally. bul it is fiJmed almosl entirely in middle-shot.
Sorne 01' the films I have just mentioneo are negligib1e as art; several are
lirsl-rale. (The same for Ihe plays, though no correlation between the merits
\)1' Ihe movies anO Ihose of Ihe "original" plays can be eslablished.) However,
Ih~~ ir virllles and faults cannot be sorted out as a cinema tic versus a theatrieal
l'IclllclIL Whelher derived from plays or not films \vith comp1ex or formal
dialogue . fi lms in whic h Ih e CtUl lera is slatic or in which the action stays
IIldoors . a re nol. necessarily thealrica l. p('/' COl1tra, it is no more part 01' the
pll lU livc "esscllce" ol' movil's Iha l Ihe ~': lIm:ra m usl ro ve ovcr a la rge physical
¡rca. lhall il is Ih a l muv lcs IH I}·hl 11> IR' :-. ill'll l. T hu ug h IIlOsI 01' Ihe aclion 01'
l" IIr()~ a wa 's 1'' '(' f ,o\l'c/ f J¡ p t /!.I' ¡¡ I.lI tly 1.11 111 11 1\ I l all~ c ripli o n ~)r (i\)rki' s play.
1) !i
 M II HA ANII "l'1. [ · 11 Niít !j (:'
is con tincu lo O Il C la rgc routn, III S as d
as lile sa rn t.: d irCl: lo l ':, 1'/¡/'OI/I'
ll l: Il1 : II Il.'
o/ BLood, a very I'ree ami lacollic ad apl;J lioll \Ir Me/che//¡. T he quality l)!"
Melvillc's daustrophobic Les En/úllls T('f/'ih/es is as peculiar to lhe movies as
Ford's The Searche/'s or a train journey in Cinerama.
What does make a film theatrical in an in vidious sense is when the nar­
ration becomcs coy or self-conscio us: compare Autant-Lara 's ()c clIpe- Toi
d'Amélie. a brilliant cinem atic use of th e con ventions and materials of lhea t­
ricality, with Ophuls' dumsy use of similar conventions and materials in
~a Ronde.
AlIardyce Nicoll, in his book Film I.JIId Theatre ( 1936), argues that the difTer­
ence may be understood as a difference in kinds of characters. " Practically all
effectively drawn stage characters are types [while] in the cinema we demand
individualization ... and impute greater power of independent life to the
figures on the screen." (Panofsky, it might be ment ioned , makes exaetly the
opposite point: that the nature of films , in contrast to plays, req uires flat or
stock characters.)
Nieoll's thesis is not as arbitrary as it may at first appear. I would relate it
to the fact that often the indeliblc moments of a film, and the most potent
elements of eharacterization , are precisely th e " irrelevant" or unfunctional
details. (A random example: the ping-pong ball the schoolmaster toys with in
Ivory's S/wkespea/'e Wal/ah.) Movies thrive on the narrative equivalent 01' a
technique familiar from painting and photography, off-centering. It is this
that creates the pleasing disunity or fragmentariness (what Nicoll means by
" individualization ",?) 01' the characters of many of the greatest films. In
contrast, linear "eoherence" of detail (the gun on the wall in the first act that
must go off by the end of the third) is the rule in Occidental narrative theatre ,
and gives rise to the sense of the unity of the characters (a unity that may
appear like the statement of a " type") .
But even with these adjustments, Nicoll's thesis seems less than appealing
when one perceives that it rests on the idea that "When we go to the theatre .
we expect theatre and nothing else." What is this theatre-and-nothing-e1se? tI
is the old notion 01' artifice. (As if art were ever anything else. As if some arts
were artificial but others noL) According to Nicoll, \Vhen we are in a thea tre
" in every way the 'falsity' 01' a theatrical production is borne in upon us, so
that \Ve are prepared to demand nothing save a theatricaJ truth." In lhe
cinema, however, every member of the audience, no matter how sophistic­
ated, is on essentially the same level; we all believe that the camera can not Iie.
As the film actor and his role are identical , so the image cannot be d issociated
from what is imaged. Cinema . the re l"ore, gives w; wha l is cxperienced as Ihe
truth of life.
COlll dn '1 lheatre di ~~íl l ve lhe J isLi nction helwi!cn Ih,' trll tJ, 0 1' arl jl ¡~'e <lI1lJ
lhe lrul h ol' lilc'! Isn' llhaljllst whal lhc lh\)¡jlrc , I ~ 1,l lIal :il.'ck" lo ud! I:m ' ll ha l
'11/1
I' JJ 1\1 A NJ) 1 111 A II~I
whal is hé ill)' S() lI t,ht Whl:1l thcaln: is conccived as <In e..\ clwnge wilh an
alldielll'e? sOlllething lhat films can never he.
Ir an irreducible distinction between theatre anJ cinema does exist , it may
he this. Thea tre is con fined to a logical or COl7lillUOUS use of space. C inema
(lhrough editing, that is , lhrough the change ofsh ot- which is tbe basic unit
of lilm construction) has access to an alogical or disrol1til1uous use of space. In
lhe theatre, people are either in the stage space or "ofT." When " on," they are
always visible or visualizable in contiguity with each other. In the cinem a,
111) such relation is necessa rily visible or even visualizable. (Example: the la st
shot ofParadjanov's Jnlhe ShadOlvs (!tOur Anceslor.\'.) Sorne films considered
ohjectionably theatrical are those which seem to emphasize spatial contin­
uities, like Hitchock's virtuoso R op e or the daringly anachronistic Gerlrud.
But c10ser analysis 01' both these films would sho\\' now complex their treat­
Illent of space is. Tho longer and longer "takes" toward which sound film s
have been moving are, in themselves, neither more nor less cinematic than the
short "takes" characteristic of silents .
Thus , cinematic virtlle does not reside in the ftuidity of the positioning of
lhe camera nor in the mere frequency of the change of shot. It consists in the
arrangement 01' screen images and (now) of sounds. Mélies, for example,
lhough he didn't get beyond the static positionin g of his camera, had a very
striking conception 01' how to link screen images. He grasped thal editing
olTered an equivalent to the magician's sleight of hand--thereby suggesting
lhat one 01' the features of film (as distinct from theatre) is that Clnyllúl1g can
happen , that there is nothing th at can 't be represented convincingly. Through
editing, Mélics presents discontinuities of physical substanee and behavi o r.
In his films, the disl;ontinuities are, so to speak, practical, functional ; they
accomplish a transformation 01' ordinary reality . But the contin uous reinven­
lion of space (as well as the option 01' temporal indetemlinacy) peculiar to
film narration does not pertain only to the cinema's ability to fabricate
"visions," to show us a radicall y altered world . The most " realistic" use ofthe
Illotion-picture camera also in vol ves a discontinuous account of space.
Film narration has a '"syntax ," composed of the rhythm of associations
allll disjunctiolls. As Cocteau has written, "My primary concern in a film is to
prevent the images from ftowing, to oppose them to each other, to anchor
lhelll and join thelll without destroying their relief. " (But does sueh a concep­
lion offlllll syntax entail, as Cocteau thinks, our disavowal of movies as
" mere entertalnmen t instead 01' a vehide for thought",!)
In drawing a line o f' JClll a n.: a liOIl hctween theatre and Illms, the issuc of
II \\: collLinuily 01' spal.:c ~CC I1l ~ h 1 n I\) lIIore fundamen ta l lhan the differenee
Ilta l m igh l he P\)ill lcd o ul b¡:lwW II lil cHtlC i1 S <In organizalion o r movement
in lhrct"-d ill1c nsillll,11 space (lit", d.III"'·) "I' I ~IIS l.:illell1a as an Mg<l niza tion 01'
plu lle Spíll.:C (Iikc paill till )',) flll' th ,·" I I ~· '''l ,'¡ljl¡Il'ili ¡,;s t'llr l11an ir ulat ing sracc
jl l

allll limt: art:, sim ply, Illue \¡ crllJ~ r a nu I1I1HI: Iahlwt:d Ihan f¡ 1111 's. Tht:aln:
cal1nol cqua l the cinema 's facilities for lhe slridly-con lrolled n:petilion of
images, for the duplication 01' matching ofword and image, and for thcjux ta­
position and over-Iapping ofimages . (Through advanced Iigh ling tech niques,
one can now "dissolve" on the stage. But as yet there is no eq ui valenl , not
even through the most adept use of scrim, of the "Iap disso lve.")
Theatre has been described as a medialeJ art , presum ably beca use it uSlIall y
consists of a pre-existent play mediated by a particular performance which
oflers one of many possible interpretations 01' the pla y. f"i lm , in contrast, is
regarded as unmediated- because of its larger- Ihan-life scale and more un­
refusable impact 011 the eye, and beca use (in Panofsk y's word s) " the medium
of Ihe movies is physical reality as such " and the characters in a movie " have
no aesthetic existence outside the actors." But there is a n equally valid sel1se
which shows movies to be the mediated arl and theatre the unmcdiated ol1e.
We see what happens on the stage with our own eyes. We see on the screen
what the camera sees. In the cinema, narration procccds by ellipsis (the "cut"
or change of shot): the camera eye is a unified point of view that continually
displaces itself. But the change of shot can provokc q uestions, the simpl.est
01' which is: from w/¡ose point of view is the shot seen? And the ambiguity
01' point of view latent in all cinematic narration has no equivalent in the
theatre.
Indeed , one should not neglect to emphasize the aesthetically positive
role 01' disorientatiol1 in the cinema. Examples: Busby Berkeley dollying back
from an ordinary-Iookiug stage already established as some thirty feet deep
to disclose a stage area three hundred feet square. Resnais panning from
character X's point of view a full 360°, to come to rest upon X 's face.
Much may be made of the fact that , in its concrete existence, cinema is an
objeel (a producl , even) whilc theátre is a peljór/na/'lee. Is this so important?
In a way , no . Whether objects (likefilms or paintings) or performanees (like
music or theatre) , all art is first a mental aet , a fact of consciousness. The
object aspect of film , the performance aspect of theatre are mere\y means-­
means to the experience, whieh is not only "of" but " through" the film and
the theatre-event. Each subject of an aesthetic experience shapes it to his own
measure. With respect to any sil1/ile experience, it hardly matters that a film is
usually idcntieal from one projeetion of it to another while theatl"e perform­
ances are highly mutable.
Thc differenee between object-art and performanee-art lies behi nd
Panofsky 's observation that "the screenplay, in wntrast lO the theatre play ,
has no aesthclic existencc indepe nden l 01' its perfor mance," and eharacters in
mo vics are Ihe sl an; wh o en act Ihem. It is bcc<l ll 'ic Ihe fi lm is an ohject, el
lol a lity th al is sct, Ihal mov ic roles are iJc ntk¡ d \V il h Ihe aCll)fS' pc rfoml ­
allces: whilt: itl fl Jl! Ihcatrc (in Ihe Wcst. UI1 add ll lV\' rll lhc l Ihan un o rgutlic
111H
I I I 1\1 "N n 'I ' I f I ( " '1' fU
;\lt'!) "nly Ihe wrillcn play is " fi .'H.~J . " atl objccl anJ lhcrcforc cxisting apart
11'0111 any slaging DI' il. Yd lhis J ichotomy is nol beyond dispute . Just as
lIIovjcs nt:cJn ' 1 necessarily be dcsigned to be shown in theatres at all (they can
he inlcnucd ror more I.:ontinuoul> and casuallooking), él movie muy be altered
from onc projection to Ihe next. Harry Smith, when he runs ofThis own films ,
Illakes cach projeclion an unrepeatable performanl.:e. And. again , it is not
lruc that all theatre is only about written plays whieh may be given a good or
abad production. In Happcnings and other recent thea tre-events, we are
precisely being offered "plays" identieal with their productions in lhe Same
scnse as the screenplay is identical with the film .
Yet. a dilTerence rcmains . Beca use the film is an objeet, it is totally manipul­
able. totally calculable. A film is Iike a book. another portablc art-objeet;
making a fi lm. Iike writing a book , mcans constructing an inanimate thing,
cvery element 01' which is determinate. Indeed . in films , this determinancy
has 01" can have a qua si-mathematical form , like Illusic. (A shot lasts a certain
number of seconds, a ehange of angle of so many degrees is required to
"match " t\Vo shots.) Given the total determinacy of the result on eelluloid
(whatever the extent of the direetor 's conscious intervention), it \Vas inevit­
able that sorne film directors would want to devise sehemas to make their
intentions more exaet. Thus, it was neither perverse nor primitive of Busby
Berke\ey to ha ve uscd only one camera to shoot lhe who\e 01' cach of his
mammoth dance numbers. Every "set-up" was designed to be shot from only
one exaetly calculated angle. Bresson, working on a far more self-eonscio us
level of artistry , has dedared that , for him , the director's task is to find th e
single correct way of doing eaeh shot. An image cannot be justified in itselr,
according to Bresson; it has an exactly speeifiable relation to the temporally
adjacent im ages, which relation constitutes its " meaning. "
But the theatre allows only the loosest approximation to this sort offormal
concern . (And responsibility . Justly, French critics speak 01' the director of a
f11m as its "author ." ) Beea use they are performances. somelhing always " Iive,"
Iheatre-events are nol subject to a comparable degree of control , do no1
admit a comparably exact integration 01' effects.
It would be foolish to conc\ude that the best films are those which arise
from the greatest amount 01' eonscious planning: lhe plan may be faulty ; and
with sorne directors , instinct works bettcr than ány plan. Bcsides, there is
<In impressive body of " improvised " cinema . (To be distinguished from the
work 01' some film-makers , notably Godard , who have become faseinated
with the "Iook " oC improvised cinema.) Nevertheless, it scems indisputable
Ihat cinema, not only potcnlially but by its nature , is a more rigorous art than
Ihealre.
Thus, n Ol mcrdy a !',,¡ Iu rc. n r l1 ~'rw al'Cl1u nts for the fact that theat re, this
sc..lsoned <lr1, olX:lI picd sinc(' :lIl liqll llV\V ifil .. 1I sorls ortoeal oftl ces-enacting
sac n.:d ril es , rcÍnl ú rclllg \.'0 11 11111 111.11 ' ''yaltv. g uiding moral s. provok ing the
Ihna pclI l ic d isd lilrgc 01 vl"k lll ¡· II I"II I\ Il~ , l'nlllc rrin g soci al slalus, givin g
' di)
 ---" M flTrr,'- ,\'N
practica l instrw,.:l io n, alTll nli llg cnh'll ;tIl IlIlCIII. d ll' lIl fvll1[!. cc k h ratillllS, SIIh­
ver! ing e~lablislr cJ élulhorily is now \ ln Ihe u di..'nsl v~ 1x:1'o1 e IllLlvics, lhis hrash
art wilh its huge, arnorphous, passivc audicnce. Mcanwhilc. nwvies cllnlin uc
to maintain their astonishing pace of forma l arliculalion, (Takc lhe COOll1ler­
cial cinema of Europe. Japan , a nd the United States si mply since 1960, ami
consider whal audiences ha ve become habil uateJ to in (he wa y 01' increas­
ingly elliptical story-telling anu vis ua lization,)
But note: this youngest ofthe arts is also the one most heavily burdened with
memory, C inema is a time machine, Movies preserve the past, whi le lheatres­
no matter how devoted to the c1assics, to old plays--can only " modernize,"
Movies resurrcct the beautiful dead; present intact vanished or ruined envir­
onments; employ, without irony, styles and fashions that seem funny toda y;
solemnly ponder irrelevant or na'ive problcms. The historical flavor of any­
thing registered on celluloid is so vivid that practically allfilms older than two
years or so are saturated with a kinu of pathos. (The pathos 1 am describing,
which overtakes animated cartoons and drawn , abstract films as wcll as
ordinary movies. is not simply that ol' old photographs.) f ilms age (being
objects) as no theatre-event does (being always new). T here is no pathos of
mortality in thealre's " reality" as such , nothing in our response to a good
performance of a Mayakovsky play comparable to lhe aesthetic role the
emotion of nostal gia has when we see a film by Pudovkin .
Also worth noting: compareJ with the theatre, innovations in cinema seem
to be assimilated more efficiently, seem altogether to be more shareable--and
not only beca use new films are quickly and widely circul a ted . Also , part1 y
beca use virtually the entire body 01' accomplishment in film can be consulted
in the present. most filmmakers are more knowledgeable about the history of
their art than most theatre directors are about the recent past of theirs.
The key word in many discussions of cinema is " possibility." A merely
cl assifying use of the \Vord occurs, as in Panofsk y's engaging judgment that,
"within their sc1f-imposed limitations the ear1ier Disney films ... represen t.
as it were, a chemically pure distillation of cinema tic possibilities." But
behind this relatively neutral sense lurks a more polemical sense of cinema 's
" possibility." What is regularly intimated is the obsolescence of theatre, i1s
supercession by films .
Thus , Panofsk.y describes the mediation of the camera eye as opening -' up
a wor1d of possibility of which the stage can never dream ." A rtaud , ear1i er.
thought that motion pictures may have made the theatre obsolete. Movies
" possess a sort 01' virtual power which probes into the mind and uncovers
undreamt 01' possibilities ... . When t his art 's exhilaration has been blended
in the right pro portions wi th the psychi c in¡''Tcdienl ii cmn ma nds. it willlcave
the theatre far behind and we will relega te the' Ia th:1 to Ilre a u ic 01' our
memo ries. "
1(JO
111 M AN tI 'rl ll l¡\ ti.ttl
M eyc rll\l ld . I. II.'III ~' the challcnge hcad ~1I1, tho ught lhe only hope rol' theatre
Ia v ill a wlH)h.:sa lc enllllalion 01' tire cinema . .. Let liS 'cincmalify ' the theatrc:'
he urgcu. The slaging 01' plays m ust be "industrialized," theatres must accom­
IIllldalc :J.udiences in the tens of thousands rather than in the hundreds, etc.
MeYe'rhold also seemed to find so me relief in lhe idea that the coming of
',Ilund signalled the down fall 01' movies. Believing that their international
;rppcal depended en tirely on the faet that screen actors uiJn ' t speak any
parlicular language, he eouldn ' t imagine in 1930 that, even if that were so ,
tl'clrnology (dubbing. sub-titling) could solve the prob1em .
Is cinema lhe successor, the rival, 01' the revivifrer of the theatre?
t\rl forms halle bcen abandoned. (Whether because they beca me obsolete is
;rl1olhcr question.) One can ' t be sure that theatre is not in a sta te ofirremedi­
;rhle decline, spurts of local vitality notwithstanding. But why should it be
lelldered obso1ete by movies? It' s worth remembering that predictions 01'
I,bsolescence amollnt to declaring that a somcthin g has one peculiar task
(which another something may do as welJ 01' better). Has thea tre one peculiar
lask 01' aptitude'l
Those who predict the demise of the theatre , ass uming that cinema has
1'l1gulfed its function , tend to impute a relation belween films and theatre
rl'llliniscent of what was once said about photography and painting. Ir lhe
painter's job had been no more than fabricating likenesses, the invention 01'
Ilre camera might indeed have made painting obsolete. But painting is hardl y
jllst "pictures," any more than cinema isjust theatre for the masses. available
ill portable standard units.
In the nai've tale 01' photography and paintin g, painting was reprieved
\Viren it claimed a new task, abstraction. As lhe superior rea1ism 01' photography
\Vas supposed to have liberated painting, allowing it to go abstract, cinema's
~lIpcrior power to represent (not merely to stimulate) the imagination may
;rppear to have emboldened the theatre in a similar fashion , inviting the
)~ rauual obliteration of the conventional " plot. "
.t\ctually, painting and photography evidence parallel dcvelopments rathe r
Ihan eL rivalry 01' a supe!'cession. And , at least in principIe, so have theatre and
lilll" The possibililies for theatre that lie in goin g beyond psychological realism ,
111 secking greater abstractness, are not less germane to the future ofnarrative
1r!r1\s. Conversel y. the notion 01' movics as witness to real life, testimony
Iather lhan invention . lhe trealmenl of collective situations rathe!' than the
dcpiction 01' perso nal " dram a~ , " is cqually relevant lo the stage. Not su rpris­
ill!, ly , what 1'0110 wo.; so rne yca rs:r rtn Ihe ris~ of cil/ema verité. the sophisticatcd
hci l ul' docurncn l.lry (i II Il S, is .. dm:lll11clllary lhcatre. lhe " theatre o f faet. '·
l( T I IllClr 1111 t Ir. Wciss's '/'1/1' 1/11'(' \1 1'-:11 11 1111 , l\'l'l' UI pltljects o rtlle Roya l Sha ke­
"pea n: C OOl pall y ill I.ol ld nll ,
101
 ---·~~- !"'-fJ l .I , ~ II '----- I
The illlllll'lI(;(; 0 1' tite Ihelltl c IIpUII ti lll!'. "1 lit. l", " I ~ Y¡,;;IIS is wdl k.IU )WII .
t\eeord ing lo K raealll:r, lhe dislÍlH:ti vc li g lt l ll1~' 111' I)¡ ('aligari (al1d 01' rllany
subsequenl German silenlS) can be lraeeu 11') U II cxpcril11clIl wilh Iig hting
Max Reinhard t made shortly before, in his prodllclion 01' SOl'ge's play, 1'11('
Beggar. Even in this period , howeve r, the impaet was reciproca!. T he aecom­
plishments of the " Expressionist film" wcre immediatcly abso rbed by the
Expressionist theatre. Stimlllated by the cinematÍc techniq ue ()I' lhe " iris-in ,"
stage lighting took to singling out a lone player, 01' some segOlent ofthe sce ne,
masking out the rest of the stage. R otating sets tried to approx imate the in ­
stantaneous displacement ofthe camera eye. ( More recently, reports have come
of ingeniolls IightÍllg techniques used by the Gorki Theatre in Leningrau,
directed since 1956 by Georgi Tovstonogov, whjch allow for inc redibly rapid
scene changes taking place behind a horizontal c urtain of light.)
Today traffic seemS, with fe\\' exceptions, entirely one way: film to theatre.
Particularly in France and in Central anu Eastern Europe, the staging 01' many
plays is inspired by the movies . The aim of adapting neo-cinema tic d evices
for the stage (l exdude the outright use of films within the theatre produc­
tion) seems mainly to tighten up the theatrical experience, to approximate the
cinema's absolute control of the flow amllocation of the audience's attentioD.
But the conception can be even more directly cinema tic. Example: Josef
Svoboda's production of Th e Insecl Play by the Capek brothers at the Czech
National Theatre in Prague (recently seen in London) which frankly attempted
to install a mediated vision upon the stage, equivalent to the discontinuo us
intensifications of the camera eye. According to a London critic's account,
"the set consisted of two h uge, faceted mirrors slung at an angle to the stage.
so that they reflect whatever happens there defracted as if through a decanter
stopper or the colossally magnified eye of a fty. Any figure placed at the base
ol'their angle becomes multiplied from floor to proscenium; farther out, a nd
you find yourself viewing it not only face to face but frolTl overhead, the
vanlage point of a camera slung to a bird 01' a helicopter. "
Pc rhaps lhe flrst to propose the use of film itself as une element in a theatl'e
cx [)cricnce was Marinetti . Writing between 1910 and 1914, he envisaged lhe
lhcalre as a final synthesis of all the arts ; and as such it had to use the newesl
an l'orm, movies. No doubt the cinema also recommended itself for inc1usi on
bt'cause of the priority Marinetti gave to the use of existing for ms of po pula r
cntertainment, such as the variety theatre and the ca{é-chanlC/nt. (He ca llcd
his projected art form "the F uturist Varicty Thcatre.") Ami cinema , at thal
lime, was not considered as anything other than a vulgar art.
Soon a fler, lhe idea begins to occur freq ucntl y. In the total-theatre projects
nI' Ihe l3a uhalls g rou p in lhe 1920's (G ropi us, Piíicalor, ct.c.), film had a
n:gul;rr pla ce. Meyerho ld il1sisled on its use in Ilw (lr ca lre. (11e descri bed his
progw m as 1'1I11il lillg Wagnc r's ~mcc "whnll y 1/IIIpi:lll " plo)loS<l ls lo " lI se all
lO :t
rr r 1\1 -.·N
' t'I
II ll'¡ " IS a va il a hh: Il llllI the llt.hcr al ts
o " ¡:jll l\ '..; aclual clIlploymenl has by now
)
,1 Iil ldy IOllg Iristmy, whidl indlldcs "Ihe living m!wspaper," "cpic theatre ,"
,11 111 " IIaplll'lI ings." T hi s year markcd the introduction ora film sequencc into
IIllladway-lype theatrc. 1n lwo highly successful musicals, London 's Come
'\"1' \I'it/¡ Me and Ncw York's Superman , both parodic in tone, the action is
1I1tnrll)lICd to lowcr a scrcen and run otTa moyie showing the pop-art hero' s
r \ ploits.
Thus l'a r, lhe use of fllm within Iive theatre-events has tended to be stereo­
ryped . I ilm is employed as document, supportive of or red undant to the live
~;Ia gc evenls (as in Brecht's productions in E a st Berlín). O r else it is employed
,I~ /¡a!!ucillant: recent examples are Bob W hitman 's Happenings, a nd a new
"illd 01' nightclub situalion , the mixed-med ia discotheque (A ndy Warho l's
Jlrc Plastic Inevitable, Murray the K 's World). The interpolation offilm into
IlIt' theatre-experience ma)' be enlarging froll1 the poinl of view of theatre.
Bul in terms 01' what film is capable 01', it seems a reductive, monoto nous use
'JI' lilm.
I' very interestin g aesthetic tendency now is a species of radicalism. T he
lJuestion each artist must ask is: What is my radit:alism , the one dictated b y
1/11' gil"ts and temperament? This doesn ' t mean all contemporary artisls belicve
Ihal art progresses. A radical position isn't Ilecessarily a forward-Iooking
)Il1sition.
( 'ollsider the two principal radical positions in the arts today. D ne recom­
Illcnds the breaking down 01' distinctions between genres; the arts wOllld
l'vcntuate in one art. consisting of many different kinds of behavior going on
al Ihe sall1e time, él vast behavioral magma or synaesthesis. The other posi­
lioll rccommends the maintaining and c1arifying ofbarriers between the arts,
hv Ihe intcnsification of what each art distinctively is; painting must use only
1IlIlse means which pertain to painting, music only those which are musical ,
III1Vcls those which pertain to the novel and to no other literary form, etc.
Tlle two positions are, in a sen se, irreconcilable. Exeept that both are
IIIvllked lo SUppOrl a perennialmodern quest--the quest for the definitive art
fllrm. t\n art may be proposed as definitive beca use it is considered the most
Iigmolls, or mosl fundamental. For these reasons , Schopenhauer suggested
,IIId Paler asserted that aJl art aspires to the condition 01' mllsic. Mo re recen tl y.
Ihe thesis t.ltat all the arts are leading toward one art has been advanced by
"IIII11lsiasls ol" thc cincma. Thc candidacy of film is fOllnded on its being so
:X<lt:1 amI, potellliall y, :-;0 COll1 ph.:x a rigorous combination of ll1usic, Iiter­
ni 11 re, auc.J t he image .
Or, a n :l rl may be pn) po1icd 11'> ddi ni tivc 11l'cau se il is lhe mosl inclusive.
Jhis is 111l' hasis lit' Ihe JC'llllly f,JI Ihl'¡¡l l\' hcld l) ul by Wag nc r. Marinctt i,
1\.1 :IIId J ollll ( ' ¡t ~\! all ,' l"whoI11 \'lI\i~ a l'.l' Ihl'ull'ca!o\ II l)th ing k ss Ihan a lOla l
:11 1

ar\. pO\clllially ClllIScriplillg all I li t.: <I ris inl p 11'; ~l'IV ICC, Alld as III ~ id eas ~l f
!jy na~sIIH:sia conlinuc to pro lilCrat~ a moJ1g j1l1 illll' I ". sculptnrs, a rd lilucts, an o
cornposcrs. theatre remains the favored cand ida\c rOl'
the role of s UllJmati vc
art. So canceived, af COllrse. theatrc's claims do contradid those 01' cinema.
Partisans of theatre would argue that while mllsic, painting, dance, ci nem a ,
t he speaking 01' words, etc. can a ll conve rge on a " stage," the fi lm-objed ca n
only become bigger (mllltiple screens, 360 0 projection, etc.) or longer in dllra­
tion or more internally articulated and com plex. Thcatre can be an yt hing,
everything; in the end , films can only be more ofwhat lhey speci fically (that is
to say, cinematically) are.
Underlying the eompeting apocalyptic expectatians for both arts, o ne
detccts a common animus . In 1923 Béla Bál azs, anticipating in great detall
the thesis 01' M arshall McLuhéln , described movies a s the henLlo 01' a new
" visual culture" that will give us back our bodies , ano particularly our faces ,
which have been renoered illegible, soulless, unexpressive by the centuries-olo
ascendancy 01' " print. " An animus against literature, against " the printing
press" and its "culture of concepls ," also informs mo st of the interesting
thinking about the th eatre in our time.
What's important is that no definition or cbaracterization of theatre and
cinema, even the most self-evident, be taken for granted.
For inslance: both cinema and theatre are temporal arts. Lik e music (and
unlike painting), everything is /lol present all at once.
Coulo this be mooified? The allure 01' mixeo-media forms in theatre s ug­
gests not only a more elongated and more complex " drama " (like Wagnerian
opera) but also a more campael theatre-experience which a pproaches the
condition of painting. This prospect 01' increased compactness is broach eo
by Marinetti; he call s it simultaneity, a leading idea of Futurist aesthetics. In
becoming a final synthesis 01' all the arts, says Marinetti , theatre " would use
the ncw twentieth-century oevices 01' electricity and the cinema; this would
enable plays to be extremely short, since all these technical means wou ld
enable the theatrical synthesis to be achieved in the shortest possjble space 01'
time, as all the elements could be pTesented simultaneousl y."
A pervasive notion in both aovanced cinema ano theatre is the idea 01' art as
an ael of violence. Its source is 10 be found in the aesthetics 01' F llturism an o
of Surrealism : its principa l "tcxls" are, for theatre, the writings 01' Artauo
<l ml , ror cinema , the two classic film s 01' Luis Bu ñuel , L'/Ige d'O,. ano VII
e h¡ell Anda/mi . (M ore recen t exa lll ple.s: lhe earl y plays o f IOfl cscn , a l le a~t as
wnccivcu; the " d nem a 01' cruclty" al' /-l itchcock, ('1011/1,1 h Ullju, Robcr t
Alorích, I\ll;ln:.ki; wl) rk hy the Li vin g T hl'atll';, SOl ll l' .. 1 tlll' nco-cinCm:llÍl.:
lO I
F 11 M .\ N 11 I 11 1 A I jel
lí¡'hlillg I cc llllll p ll.'~ II:-.cd ill cxpcrirrwlllallhealrcs; lhe sOllud 01' late Cagc and
I a Monte Yo ulIg.) rhc rclation 01' (lrt lo an audicnce understood lo be passive,
Ill Cr!, sllrlCiled, call only be assalllt. Art becomcs id entical with aggression .
f'his theory of art as assault on lhe audience--like the complementary
lIotion 01' art as ritual· - is lInderstandable, ano preeious. Still , one must not
III.:gkcl to question it, particularly in the theatre. For it can become as much
a cOllvention as anylhing else; ano eno , like all theatrical conventions.. b y
1('lI1rorcing the oeadness 01' l he audience. (As Wagner's ideology of a tOlal
tlll~atrc played its role in confirming the stupidity a nd bestiality 01' German
I'llit ure.)
Moreover, the depth ofthe assault must be asses:;ed honestly. Ln the theatre ,
this entails not "oiluting" Artaud. Artauo's writings rep resent the oemano
rOl' a totally open (therefore, flayed, self-cruel) consciousness ofwhich theatre
would be O/le éldjunct 01' in strument. No work in the theatre has yet amounted
to this. Thus, Peter Brook has astutcly and forthrightly disclaimed that his
\'lllllpa ny's work in London in the "Thea tre ofCruelty," whidl culminateo in
his cdebrated proouction 01' Weiss' Maral/Sade. is genuinely Arta ud ian. lt
ís Artauoian , he says, in a trivial sense only. (Trivial from Artaud 's point of
vicw, not from ours.)
hlf sorne time, all useful ideas in mt have been extremcly sophisticated. Like
I heidea that everything is what it is, an á no t another thing. A painting is a
painting. Sculpture is sculpture. A pocm is a poem, not prose. E tce tera . And
the complementary idea: a painting can be "literary" or sculptmal , a poelll
can be prose , theatre can emulate ano incorporate cinema . cinema can be
Iheatrical .
We need a new ioea. It wilI probabl y be a very simple one. Will we be able
lo reeognize it?
In ,

8l
THE PR ESENCE
• II lIlIlIlInily in a neo- (1)1" pseudo-) ritual , erasing any sense 01' theatrical rift.
O F ME D IAT IO N
" 1 '·scci ng place. " implying a necessary separation betwee n the audience
Roge/' Copeland
Soun;c: Tlw J)ral/la Re l'ie\\': Tlw .!ourIla! u(l'eljimn<ll1c(' S rudies 34(4) ( 1990):
Tben and DOW
Two productions, preciscly 20 years apart, emblematic of their respect ive
decades as well as of the immense chasm that scparates the 1960s from the
1980s: the Living Theatre 's Paradi.l'e No\\' (1968) and Richard Foreman ':;
Whaf Did He See (1988). The former is orten regarded as a q uintessen tial
arnrmation 01' live, unmediated presence. lls 1110st noto rious sequence, "The
Rite 01' Universal Intercourse," was also its most representative . Julian Beck
and Judith Malina described it as follows: "The actors gather ncar the center
01' the playing area. They lie down together on the stage 1100r, embraeing.
Their bodics form apile , caressing, moving, undulating, loving. They a re
hreaking the touch barrier. [ ... ]1 r a member of the public joins this gro up .
he is we1comed into the Rite" (1971: 74).
Twenty years later Foreman's production was intent upon collslrUCl il/K
harriers. not eradicating them (or, perhaps more precisely, objecti fyi ng
otherwise invisihle harriers). Here the performerlspectator relationshi p was
"mcdiateu" both aurally and visually. A transparent, Plexiglas wal l separate-cl
the audience from the performers. The actors' voices were heard " indirectl y:'
liltered through mic ro phones and speaker systems - but not for the conven­
tional purpose of amplification . The performance took place in a n exceed ­
ingly intimatc space (the Susan Stein Shiva Th eater in J oe Papp 's r ub lic
Thcatcr complex). That thin sheet of Plexiglas notwithstanding, there was no
convcntional reasoll to amplify the actors' voices . I ndeed , the space was so
in1il11ate. o ne co uld virtua lly read the actors' li ps. No . this moue of tcch no­
1ogit.:a 1 med ialion was there to mediate , not te) élmplil'y o r lO all ow rOr somc
su rl of hypcr na luralislll or wh isperctl inlimacy. (Thc t'Hldy m ikcs, by Ihe way,
Viere una halila:dly a nd ralhcr g r ue~ o md y visib ll! lo pcd 1" Ihe <Iclol":-;' chcéks
li)., c I.V. IIccd lc!:i Ihllt ' lild misscd thcir 1lI:1I)., :-. )
~II(,
1111. I' IU 'i 1; Nt' l: 011 MIl I I " l ' ll 'l
r1I1 S l1\ay """lId HI.lo: yet aIHllh ~' 1 ~~· I n I dnssil· cllnrron\.aliuns belween
'\11 11111111 Á lt aud ano Bc rlolt Orechl. !\nd indced , one could easily approaeh
Ih ~' jll .\ tapI1sitioll in thal way . Cc rtainly l O years ago. one 11'00¡/d have read it
11..11 way. I'cm/(!is(' N(m \V()uld have hecn viewed as an attempt to reunify the
« 1111 word "thcalre," arter all. derives etymological1y from the Greek " lheatron"
(1 h\lsc w l1\) watch) and the aclors (those who do). Whi l[ Did H e See. by con­
11 "t-;t, intl'n si fies that separation with a series of I'elji·emdungseffekts designed
1., Jlfl~sc rve the spectator's perceptual freedom.
Bllt 1\1 like to pro pose that today there may be a di l'ferent and more
1IIIIIIIilwling way of contrasting the ambitions of these two productions:
2~ 44.
!lo l as Artalld vs Brecht, but rather Artaud vs Jacques Derrida or Jean
1Illl1drilbrd. Artaud. the apostle of pure, unmediated presence vs those
posIslruc turalist " thinkers who complicate the distinction between presence
.111.1 ahscnce.
Dcrrida's Christmas
rile absenee 01' presence. " Thi s phrase has become slIch a c1iche of post­
.lIlIcturalist criticism that it even serves as the punch line of a pretty good
ItI).,\': "Whafs a Derridean Christmas'?" You gllessed it: "The absence of
(11cscnls. " The t~lct that this joke works better 1ive (when heard), tha n it does
UII pa per (when read), may mean that the joke is on Derrida- for his critiq ue
.. 1 prcsence hinges on the assumption that sOllleone with whom \Ve have a
1.H"I'-to-race conversation is no more " present" to us than someone from
",holll \ve receive a letter. To use the fashionable form ulation: Derrida refuses
1.. " privilegc" speech over \Vriting. Thus--according to this argument- ·even
Ihe 1Il0st spontaneous utterance has already been infiltrated by the spirit of
\\11 iting. Living specch, in other \Vords, i5 no less meJiated than print. !\ nd for
1hl )Sl! who fl nd Derrida's cri tiq ue of presence too fa rfetched or too abstract to
Iw I." onvincing, there 's Baudrillard 's conception of the " hyperreal,"' a reality
.• ) IlIedialed by media that wc 're no longer capable of distinguishing " the real
111I1Ig " fmm its simulation (or maybe it'sjust that \Ve so often seem to prefer
1111" !;illlulalion to the real thing). Note for examp1e, that on Broadway these
¡)dVS l'vcn nonmusical plays are rolltinely miked , in part because the results
,p lInd Illore " natural " to an audience whose ears have been conditioned by
'.II· ICI) Il'lcvision. high Ildelity LP's, and compact disks.
Mllch has heell written in recenl ycars about the effeet of Derrida's ideas
1111 SI)lIle o f" our most chcrishl:d lIoliollS about theatre. But the prob1em with
11\. )~I 01" I hes\! :tna Iyscs is 1ha t 1hl'y rllCIIS loo narrowly on his cri tiq ue of
plt , )lIucell l ri sOl, I he ilka l ita 1 lit\: 1iv ill ~f vo jee olTcrs some sort 01' privileged
ti (I.!S~ lo Iltl.' spca).,cr', i1t1I IIl!lllil. ~d r wl h Jl';I S Ihe very same pcrson's written
Wlu d s ille elllll P¡¡ra livcly lik ll:s·. II IIP"lslIlId l 1I11\:lI al cd ... in any event, less
\11
 M L I> IA " NI) r jll" l lNfl 1 "UY
jlJ\'SI:II I 1:lirlOr FlIChs, in an essay Cll lltkd "\' ICl-ol'IIl:l' alld lhe Rl.:vc nge uf
W lilin ~." argues that: "Since the Renaissa nl:<':. DI'UIIHI hus tradit ion¡lI ly becJ1
Ih\J ronll 01' writing that strives to create tlIl~ ill usio l1 that it is eOlllpo sed 0 1'
spon talleolls speech, a foml 01' writing that pa radoxically s eem s (o asse rt '1 he
claim 01' speech to be a direct conduit to Being" (1985 : 163). W ha l sh c says
is certainly l rue 01' naturalism and realism (perhaps even of some genre!; 01'
poctie realism), but is it true of a1l - or even most-d rama since the R en a is­
san ce? 0 1' Elizabetha n , J acobean , and R esto ration drama? 01' Pira ndello,
Genet, and Beckett--not to men tion Brecht'? Do any 01' these writers lry l O
conceal their literariness? Do they reall y a ttempt to crea te the iJlusion that ¡he
wo rds spoken by their cha racters are bein g uttered spon taneously (wh a!
Stanisla vski calleel " the ill usion of the first time")? Speaking of Ilelene Weigel
in The M other, Brecht wrote that she spoke "the sentences ,as if they were in
the third person " (in Willet 1967: 174). And even Ihe most conversational
readings of Sh a kespeare don 't in any way den y Ihe "Iiterariness" of iambie
pentameter.
So when Fuehs goes on to confer poststructuralist signifkance on " th e
emcrgence of writing - as subject, activity, and artifact-at the center 01'
theatrical performance in numerous reüent plays and performanee pieces"
(1985: 163). one can only marvel at her eapacity for historical amnesia. Which
is not to say that theatre hasn 't changed in ways that reflect the insights 01'
Derrida (and , I would hasten to add, Baudrillard). But it 's essential that o ur
conception of theatrical presence not be confined to " phonocentrism ." Po r
presenee in the theatre has less to do with thc distinction between speaking
and writing than with the way in which the architectural and technological
eomponents of the performance space either promote or inhibit a sense 01'
"reciprocity" between actors ami spectators. (A1though 1 would concede thal
the speeeh/writing dichotomy can provide an effective metaphor for discuss­
ing other, more pertinent modes ol'theatrical mediation insofar as language­
whether spo ken or written- always remains at a distan('c from the objects it
signifies .)
'fhe "essence" of theatre
lndeed , if Derrida and/or Baudrillard are correc!. then most of the tradi­
tional arguments about the theatre's essence and raison d 'etre cry out for
reexamination. Let's run one 01' the most familiar versions 01' tbis argllment
up the flagpo1c and see ifit still fiies : What is llnique about the theatre'?Wll<l1
can happen there that can't happen at the movies, or in literature, or while
sta nding before a painting 01' a work 01' sculpture? Until recently, the a nsv..·er
- no maUer who provided il- almost alwa ys had something to do witll lhe
ract th a t il 'o; li ve a nJ unrnclli ated, tha t it can put us in t he p resenc(' of
olher li vi ng. bn.:a lhillg huma n bei ngs. Surco thl: 1l10VICS CH II c ut inSla nta nc­
ollsly rr~\ln BwpldY II lo MnSCl\W. T hcy call 1111 Ilw hlp ~nl'C I1 wilh d ') HC- II PS
101'\
¡ 111t 1' llI :SP,NI' 1j n i' MI Jl J I.\ IIII N
,,1 " hjC¡;IN Iuo 111 1\ 11.1 Icgiskr il! lhe I1 I1's l III IJI1I HIC Ion; IlIey can pa n pasl
vislas loo vasl lo be con tai ncd on Ihe d eepc~ 1 opera house slagc. But lhey
la 11 '1 riv;J 1 I he raec-lo-f~lce cnco unln of' actor amI audience thal conslitutes
Ihl~ Ibealre's unique glory.
That at least is lhe traditional (ir middlcbrow) argument. This was also
Ihe pq inl at which th e midd1ebrow and the modernist meL (M odernism here
hcing dcflned as an effort to strip each medium to its "essence," jett isoning
:\Ilylhing in lhe art work deemed extraneous to that essenee.) lf the essence
01' Ihc llledium is defined as " presence" then the thea trieaJ modernist will
Icaflinn thi s ancient wisdom \Vith a vengcanee. The late '60s work ofthe Liv­
ing T heatrc may have flaunted the possibilities oflive. "unmediated" presence
:1 hit more aggressively than a play by Thornton Wilder, but neither would
llave taken issue \Vith this time-honored conception ofwhat makes the theatrc
ul1\q uc.
!\. recent advertisement for the Denver Center Theatre Company reads in
pan, "Not available on videocassette, eompact disc, album , sixteen millimeter,
,'igIJt millimeter, video disc or eight track . . . The Magie ofLive Thcatre." (A
Illinor scandal ensued sorne years ago when it was revealed that Liza Minelli
W<lS lip synching to her o\Vn prerecorded voice during a partieularly strenu­
OIIS song and dance routine in lhe Broadway musical The A('I.) And those
\VIJo wax nostalgic about Broadway's goldell age often argue that the sort of
:Ilt1plification- and unintended mediation-· whieh is no\V routine in so m any
Ihcatres amounts to nothing less than a fall from graee.
In the mid-'60s, Jerzy Grotowski took a comparably haru line against
Icchllological mediation: "What is the theatre? What is unique about il'!
What can it do that film and te1cvision cannot?" he asked in TOlvards ti POOl'
I'/wtltre (1968: 19).
!\.nd this was his answer: " By gradually eliminating whatever proved super­
lIuous, we found that theatre can exist without make-up, without autonomi.:
cosl ume and scenography. without él separate performance arca (stage), with­
out lighting and sound efrects, etc. lt cannot exist without the actor-spcctator
1dalionship 01' perceptual, direct, 'live' eommunion" (1968 : 19). Theatre groups
\Vbo made use 01' mierophones, film, and video were accused by Grotowski
01' "artistic kleptomania," of stealing froln other media (which had the effeet
01' obseuring- a nd also mediating- the theatre 's " tTue" so urce 01' power).
The " poor theátre " (whieb is the name Grotowsk i gave to theatre that's been
,',Iripped to ils "essence"), "[ . .. ] challenges the notion of theatre as a syn­
Ihesis 01' disparate creative d isciplines- litera tu re, sculpture, painting, architee­
IlIJ'l'. lighling, acting [ ... ]. Thi s 'sYllthetic theatre ' is the eontemporary
Ihl'alre. which we rcad ily ca ll tll\.' ' R ich Thcalre'- rich in fla ws" (1968: 19).
(jrolllwski's hlan kCI di smiss:1I ur Ihu " rieh theatre " refuses- unwisely in
IlI y o pi nllll l lo dil ü;rcntia lc hdlVCC JI hl: lssy. ovc rproJ ueeJ Broad way Il1US­
lea ls :I lld more am bilH H1S <.:x~'n~i ~\'~ 111 wli a l w,cd In he c~d led "ll')lal Ihcat rc:'
11111 al IC:IS I Ju rin g 1111': 1')(,0'. I\¡ , h', 1 1I 1\ lltl!, I~: al ¡;\)Il IPOJ\\Jllls DI' Ilw IOlal
It 11)

theatre event - pal lltularl y t h~ fi lm all u slllk ! H "il:l ll:d illla glts w ell' lISlI
ally thcre not lo I11cdiale or complicaLc livillg prCSCIl Cl' h u! lo imensil'y il: lo
massage and stimulatc the senses, to pro viJe, in othe r words, the cxpcri ~mX'
of sensory overload (ortcn a simulation 01' psychedcJia). Thc res ult-·a~ with
psychotropie drugs· was oftcn a hcightened sense 01' prcscntness, 01' thc herc
and now (another corollary of prcscncc). And many exercises in totaJ thealrc
(Luca Ronconci's Orlando Furioso [1968], A riane M nouchk ine's 1789 [ 1970])
also tended to surround the audience "environmentally," intcn ~ifying thc
sense that performcrs and spectators share the same space and time, c halleng­
ing the illusion typically created by the fourth wall (which impl ics that lhe
speetators arc peering into a spatial ano tem poral dimension different from
the one they actual1y inhabit at that moment).
Varieties of theatricaJ presence
So, it seems clear that something ealled "living presenee" has always becn
sacrcd to thc theatre-and nevcr more so than during the 1960s. But it's equall y
clear (even from the handful of examples cited above) that the word "presence"
means different things to different people-and lhat some of these meanings
are mutually exclusive. So before \Ve try and determine whether or not pre­
sence has become an endangered species in the age ofDerrida and Baudrillard ,
let's examine more closely what people mean when they speak of presencc.
Do lhey mean "stage presenee," the sort of charisma that enables some
performers to grab us by lhc lapels and command "Iook at me, look at me'!"
And if so, how does this sort 01' living presencc differ from the no less
mesmerizing aura generaled by the mechanically reproduccd image of the
movie star? André Bazin once wrote, " ltis false to say that the scrcen is
incapablc of putting us 'in the presencc' 01' the actor. It does so in the samc
way as a mirror·- one must agree that the mirror relays the presence of Lhe
person rcflected in it---but it is a mirror with a delayed reflection [ ... ]"
(1967:97). (Bazin here seems to be recalling Oliver Wendell Hohncs' descrip­
tion 01' photography as "a mirror with a merllory.") In Lec BreLler's proouc­
tion 01' Beckctt's Come (lnd Go (1974), the lhree actors who comprise the cast
were concealed from the audience: only their mirrorcd retlcction was visible.
And what is it precisely aboLlt an actor's presence- -whether Iive or on
screen - that commands our attention? Is presence the ability to project él
fictional "character" into the second balcony or is it just thc opposite: the
performer's ability to strip herself of protean, fictional fabrication and reveal
her "authentic" self (as Joe Chaikin seems lO advocate in his book The
Presence ollhe AClOr [1972]). In his Open Theater production. 1'l¡e Milla /ion
S11011' (1971), the actors compared their onstagc faces to photographs 01' their
younger, offstage faces. Ca.d D reycr, commen ti ng on Falconnetti 's CXl raor­
d inaTy perfonmlnce in hi s I92X 1,lm Tlle Passiol/ 0/ '/(/1111 ol Are (in wh ich lhe
aclréSs worc 11 0 mak c up) said shc was Ihe I)nly P"I fp llIll"l Il e kllew whu wen l
\ f ()
I 1I1 l' IU: .'i HN ( . H ti 1 M I P 11\ I 11) N
lo w~1rl... hy 1:11-. 1111:' "I./he r llIake uJ). P I'CSC IH':C ill this scnsc bccol1\es a baoge 0 1'
IIIKhalkl1gca hlc aulhentióty (ano , 01' coursc, a ke y concepl ror the oecade 01'
Ihe I%Os ).
1': lhcl Merman singing "Rosc's Turn " in Gy¡J.\y (1959) and Chris Burden
nonchalantly having himselfshot in the arm (Shoot, 1971) embody two very
dirlácnt --but equ ally dist incti ve modes of living presence. Perhaps this is
Ihe sort 01' difference LiQn el T rill ing ( 1972) had in m ind when he traced the
transition from the social ideal ofsince rity to that ofautheoticity: lhe former
aSSlII1leS a correspondence--·one that can never really be validated- belween
what thc audience sees and what the perfo rmer is presumed to experieoce
inwardly. "To thine own [or the character's] self be true. " The latter con­
I'mnts the perceiver with a certifiably nonfictional situation.
Other conceptions of theatrical presence have tittle or nothing to do with
the performer's charisma, capacity for self-exposure, or masochistic risk
taking. O nc can, in other words, be " in the presence 01''' a thoroughly un­
charismatic pcrformer. Similarly, presence need not be synonymous \Vith
authcnticity. Indecd, \Ve spend most 01' our lives " in the presenee" of the
illouthenlic (01' the authentieally inauthentic, as in: " lt's not fake anything, it's
real Dynel"). This latter conccption 01' presence req L1ires nothing more than
[hat perfonner and spcctator share a certain amoLlnt of time together in the
same space.
Thcrc may be a litmus test for this sort of presence: Perhaps being «in the
prcsence 01''' él performer mcans that we could , ifwe so desired , reach out anu
tOLlch (that) someonc .and tOLlch in a more direct, less mediated manner
than Ma Bell has in mind. Ifso, this \Vollld help explain the late '60s compul­
siol1 (c.g., Paradise Now) to affirm presence by creating opportunities ror lhe
physical interaction of performers and spectators. Megan Terry described
Ihe cnd of Viel Roc/( (1966) as a "cclcbration of presence": "One by one they
Ilhe actors] enter thc audiencc. Each c!looses an audience member and to uches
Iris hand, hcad, facc, hair. Look and touch. Look and tOLlch" (1967: I (4). In
I he Pcrformance GroLlP's Dionysus in 69 (1968), Wilham Finley as Dionyslls
(ano himsclf) invited the audience to join an orgiastic celebration 01' his
"nativity." JJere t wo ditTerent sorts 01' presence were affirmed: the prcscncc of
tire actor (Finley's identity is revealed rather than concealed beneath that of
1IIl' character) and the sense in which both actor and audience are " prcsent
lo " one another.
orcourse, one can be " present to" someone without actually tOllching her
Ilr him, providing that there\ some sen se of reciprocity, a sense that what
Iranspires onstagc in co nl rasl lo the Illovies-is affected almost as much by
whal harpcn!' in the LluJic nec ;J i' Ihc other way around. To cite only the most
fa miliar cxa mplc 01' thi -: lWI1· wa " s lrcet; W hen a group 01' live actors delivers
:t l;lsl-pae!!d c\llll ic J iul(l)- 1\) a 1"",·pll\'l: alldic nce, we expect them lO wa it
IIl1l il Ilre Iallg lr h.:r has dicd d\\W II "('lp lI ' Iw¡,i lllling fhe ncxL round 01' ve rbal
III1 C- IIPlll íll l:ihip, By cm,11 ;I st ,,,hU I yl 11 1 Il' ! ',111 •,1 ;1la Ilte ilJ1d n:spons ive movic
" 1

 Mil ' , I ti A N I j I 1¡f' 11 N I 1I ti ( ; \
audienee watchi llg ( ';11 Y( mt ll llradc wisccracks wlt h Rosali llo Russcll in Jli,l'
Cid Frie/ay (1 940), yo u ' re a lmost certain to miss so me hilariolls col1lc backs,
And if perform crs ano audicncc members are prescnt to on e uTw thcr in
space, are they also, by definitioll, present to one anothc r in time" Does being
present also imply a sen se of presenlness? Robert Edm und Jones, in The
D I'wlla¡ic Imagina/ion, wrote , ''This is drama ; this is theatre-to be aware
ofthe Now" (1941 : 40), But whose " now"'? The actor's (here a nd now) or the
character's (which may be way back when)? M a rsha N o ml an 's 'Nigh r Mother
(1982) takes place in a fiction aI world , b ut it also attem pts to crea te an exacl
congruence between onstage time a nd " real time," (The numc rous and highl y
visible d ocks on the furniture and wall s of th e set correspond exactly to the
time we ca n read on our own watches,) Si milarly , in Peter H a nd ke's O//end­
ing ¡he Auc/ience (1966) , the fo ur speakers (who never portray "charaeters")
inform the audience that " Here you are not expericncing a time that pretends
lo be another time. The time on stage is no ditTerent from the time off stage.
We have the same local time here " (1969: 1O). Handke's play is the ultimate
afTirmation of bere a nd now, tonight, in this particular theatre.
Presence and rcpresentatioD
But H a ndkc's conception 01' presenee is infinitely more radical : It attempts
to ban representation entirely. With unrelenting obsessiveness, Handke's
speakers hammer a way at the ve ry impulse to signify, the desire to see some­
thing as anything other than itself. Jt's as if his loquacious speakers could
exorcisc representation by outla/king it:
You see no pieture ofsomething. Nor do you see the suggestion ofa
picture. Nor do you see an empty picture. The emptiness ofthi s stage
is no picture ofanother emptiness. The emptiness ofthis stage signifies
nothing . This stage is empty because objects would be in our way. Jt
is empty beca use \Ve don 't need objects. This stage represents nothing.
It represents no other emptiness. This stage is empty . You don't see
any objects that pretend to be other objects. You d on't see a darkness
lhat pretends to be another darkness. You don ' t see a brightness th a t
pretends to be a nother brightness. You don 't see any light that pretends
to be another light. You d on't hear any noise that pretends to be another
noise . YOll don 't see a room that prctends to bc another room.
(1969: 10)
I1 erbert Blau (perhaps with Ha ndkc's utopian projcct in mind) ha s wri tte n:
" Con sid cr simp ly a n object in fro nt o r your eycs; 011 s tage iL is no lo ngcr
si m ple. A rea l chair used for a real cha.i r in a ' rcalisl il..:' seui ng remain s lhough
¡¡ r.:¡t! c ha ir. a .Iigfll or a ch a ir. It is wlw t il is no!. IIHII lglJ 1I appea rs to he whaL
.1 1
\ IJ
1 JI l ' l' IU S I , N ( 1 (J I M l · 1I 1,'\ 1 1() N
il is " (1 1) 11 W) , h 1I cvcr poss ib k lo suspl'Jld litis proccss 01' lhcalrical si gn i­
fi c¡.I\ iu tl attJ lI,:pl .:senlalion?
T he li11le has tome to examine what Derrida and Baudrillard themselves
havc to say about presence. Lct's begin with Derrida's characterization of
Artaud 's proposal for a theatre 01' cruelty :
The theatre 01' cruelty is n ot a representation [ ... J. Certainly, the
~t age will no longer represenl, sinee it wil1 not be added as a sensitive
il1ustrat ion to a n already-written text, thought a nd lived outside 01'
it and which it could only repeat I[ .. . ]. It wo uld no longer repeat a
presenl , represent a present which would be elsewhere and before it,
whose fullness would be older than its own [ . . . l.
(1978: 10)
1n other words, Artaud sought a variety 01' presen ee, imman ence, or sheer
"lhereness" which preexists and precludes the mediaey and vicari o usness of
representation. A representation cannol be ful1y " present" precisely because
it signifies or alludes to something thal isn 't fully there , whose " real " exis t­
ence lies elsewhere, beyond the confines of the stage. That explains why
Derrid a c1aims that Arta ud's "Theatre 01' Cruelty" aspired toward a "c1osure
01' representation. " The principIe eonfusion 01' our time, wrote Artaud in The
Thea/re am/ lis J)ouble , springs from "the rupture between things and words,
between things and the ideas tha l a re their representation. " A rtaud thu s
yearns to " relurn " to "a secret psychic impulse which is speeeh before words "
(1958: 7)- a set 01' Ur-sounds or primal screams in which signifier and
signified are indivisible. Such "natural " utterances are thought lo be authen­
tically amI ful1y present, unmediated by a preexisting, impersonal language
or the acquired ha bits 01' culture. Hut as Breeht so wel1 understood: "The
union 01' the organs is the only un ion and it can never bridge the gap 01'
speech " (in Brustein 1964: 247). (Note that for Brecht·-as for Derrida­
speech is no less "doubled, " no less divisive, than writing.)
Artaud 's q uest for the natural , hi s sentimental prim itivism (e.g. , his pan­
cgyrics about Balinese dance or the peyote dance of the Tarahumara) is a
prime example ofthe impulse Derrida attacks in hi s twin critique of ROLlsseau
and Levi-Strauss:
Non- European peoplcs were not only studied as th e index to a
hidden good Nature. as a native soil recovered , of a "zero degree"
with reference lo which one could outline the struct ure, the growth,
a nJ aboye all I he degrad a l iOIJ oC OUT society an d our culture. As
al wa ys, lhis ,tn: h¡tcull't'Y is a l ~ (l a t(:)eol ogy a nd an cschatology: the
uream 0 1" ti lú ll :l m.l ill tl ltn Jia k I'I CSC tlCC dosin g hislo ry [ . . . l lhe
suppression 01' cOu l1 ;1111.:1 1\11 1.11111 " ill l'.,'nce.
( 1971,: 114 15)
 1'.111>11\ I\Nll I U ' II N OI I ) ( j '
But this of coursc is precisel y l ile sun uf d USlI 1e o r fulL livin g prcsclH.:c (h" (
Derrida (and less explicitly Baud rill aru) J is l11i s~cs as unatlaillablc. Wc ~an 'l
"return" to such a state beca use il never existed. Prescncc for Oerrida is
always shot through and tarnished \Vith traces of absence, 01' that which is
somewhere else. And here his prose- as so often happens \Vith him- gets lOO
convoluted for its own good . So bear with me (01" him):
Through the sequence of su p plements there emerges a law: t hat 01'
an endless linked series, inel uctably multiplying the supplementary
mediations that produce the sensc of the very thing that they defer:
the impression ofthe thing itselr, ofimmediate presence, or originary
perception. Immediacy is derived . Everything bcgins with the inter­
mediary [ ... l.
(1976: 226)
Derrida is saying in etTect that there's no such thing as a preverbal or
non verbal sta te of perception, that consciousness is always characterized b ..
the mediacy of linguistic structure.
Hence the distinctive bril,liance of Handke 's assault on representation in
O/lending (he Audience: He doesn't aspire to a nonverbal state 01' " pure" per­
ception..··..as in, say, Robert Wilson's DeqfmGn G/once (1970). (In the original
version of Handke 's Kuspar (1968), the title character declares. " 1 have been
sentenced to rcality.") Thus in O/lending lhe Audience, Handke uses sentences
against themsdves, in the hope of holding representation temporarily at bay.
But if authentic presence implios an absence 01' representation, then
Baudril1ard's doctrine of simulationism caJTies this critique of presence a
step further: " The very definition ol' the real has become: that ol' which it is
possible to give an equivalent reproduction [ ... l. The real is not only what
can be reproduced. but that which is always already reproduced" (1983:4).
If Derrida's linguistie denial ol' presence remains abstract and untestable ,
BaudriJ1ard 's vision of the hyperreal is all too concrete and easy lo observe:
" Watch the Farrah Lookalike Make a Real Drug Bust" is the title 01' a
1989 artic1e in TV Guide. The subject is a "nonfiction " television series ca lled
"Cops" in which real-life police officers are purportedly filmed in the CO UTse
of their duties. But the "real drug bust" is conducted by a cop who Was
singled out by the producers of the series beca use she resemb1es a te1evision
personality who first came to national attention while portraying a fictional
detective. Baudrillard would probably say that the "real" policewoman on
"Co ps" will strike us as " authcnlic" lo the extent tha t she resembles·· or
reminds us of- Farrah Fawcett.
Of course it hardly comes as ncws to learn thal we live in a socie ty which
often prefers images to firsth a nd cxpericnce. We all know what happen s when
one's kids visil (he G rand C'anyon a rte r $cei ng T~t..~hllicolor images of it in
glossy nature d oculll cnlarics: il d i sap poinl ~ O ut..: Ileed ~ )(l l y rccuJ1lhc okl j okc
\ 11
I H 1( ,' IU ' S I , N ( "1 ( J 1- M H 1)1 ¡\ I 1" N
aholl( tk p rlluJ nlllpk wlH,), IIpOU hcing tnld IJOw beaut irul theí r baby ¡s.
n.:ply . "Oh (ltal's Il uthing, you should <;cc her photograph. " D aniel Boorstcin
cites that jo kc in his Illarvelous book The !muge (1961) which complains
about the ever-increasi ng n umber of"pseudo-events" tha t ha ve infiltrated the
presumably nonfictional media: presidential "photo opportunities." polit­
ical demonstrations that don'l gel underway until the news media arri ves,
etc. 1n recent years. pse udo-events have played an increasingly prominent
role in television news. D uring the summer of '89 for example, ABC's " Wor1d
News Tonight" broadcasl footage (only belatedly identified as a simulation)
which purported to show Felix Bloch, a former State Department employee,
hand delivering top secret documents to a Soviet agent. Cross-hairs were
superimposed on the screen to make it appear as ir !he grainy footage was
shot by a government surveillance team . But Boorstem is determined to
separate the newsworthy wheat from the prefabricated . camera-ready chaff;
he wants to resc ue the real from a flood of hyperbolic simulacra.
Baudrillard is inlinitely more pessimistic. In his scenario, we' re 11 0 longer
capable of ferreting out a reality which precedes the (hyper-real) image of
reality . The basic relation between the map and the territory has changed:
"The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Ilenccforth, it is
the map that precedes the territory [ ... l it is the map that engenders the
territory" (1983: 2). To simulate, he argues,
is not simply to feign : someone who feigns an illDess can simply go to
bed and Ill ake bel ieve he is il!. Someone who simulates an ill nes!>
produces in himself some of the symptoms. Thus, feigning or dis­
simulating 1eaves the reality principie intact: the difference is always
clear, it is only masked ; whereas simulation threatens the difference
between " true " and "false," between "real" and " imaginary." Since
the simulator produces " true" symploms, is he il1 or not?
(1983: 5)
And that's why Balldril1ard c1aims that contcmporary reality is never un­
mediatcd , that it is "alwa ys already rcproduced .'· Baudril1ard, one SLlspects,
would ha ve been amllsed by the earnest chorus 01' disapproval which greeted
ABC's Felix Bloch simulation. For Baudril1ard, most 01' what the nightly
news routinc1y broadcasts is already , in some sen se, simulated.
A great many playwrights have dealt with the way in which dramatic
characters have bccn mediatcd (or infiltrated) by mass media: Sam Shepard's
Miss Scoons (in Ange/ Ciry . 1976) cxclaims: "llook at the screen and 1 am the
screcn. f'm not mc. 1 don't know who I amo Ilook at the movie and r am the
l11ovi c. [ . .. l Fo r J ays 1 ¡IIII tlU! s(ar ¡llI d I'm nol me" (21). (lean Claude van
Itall ie"s TV [19661 dra lll:II I/Cs 111\: bluning 01' bo undaries betwecn the t wo
sil,h.:s 01' the (ekvisioll S~ I\:\' II IIII' ~I ' W lli) wal ..:h ~\rC literall y absorbed into
wh,,( they walch ) rile qll l llll: ~.l· , ¡l j .. 1 "\01 1111'''' Ilr 1 1t~ wuy in which med iated
I1
 In ro l l l " "N' , - , ".
images are a bsorhed as ¡(, by osnwsis Cn lllC,> In lli..:a th\.:otc Wllliallls' A( '/
De (1970). A ecrtifiably schlzo phrcnic charadcr na mcd Matlricl~ decla res.
") was picking up tv programmes in my heau like a Jew 's )Ja rp. [ ... ] cvery
time) kisseu Perowne ) \Vas forced to desalivate beca use of coursc PcrOWlI (!
didn't want David Niven's slyle ofkissing" (1970: 61 ).
Baudrillard, in his essay "The Ecstasy of Commu nicati on," sees sch izo­
phrenia as the inevitable result 01' our current situation in wh ich the booy
becomes an extension ofthe teJevision screen. Telecommunications, ironil;all y,
are loo present. Baudrilla rd speaks of
this state of terror pro per to the sch i7.ophrenic: too great a p roxi mity
of everything, lhe unc1 ean promiscuity 01' everything which toucbes,
invests and penetra tes without resistance, with no halo of private
protection , not even his own body to protect him anymore [ ... ]. lt
is the end ofinteriority and intimacy, the overexposure and transpar­
ence of the world which traverses him without obstade [ ... ]. He is
nowa pure screen , a switching center for all the networks 01' intluence.
(1985: 132- 33)
Presencc and the visual arts
So the critique of presence \Ve find in the work of Derrida and Baudrillard
would seem to hinge on the eoncept of representation. Pure presence thus
implies nothing les s than the defeat 01' representation. Significantly, one of
the most influentiallate-'60s manifestos on behalf of pure presence also ealled
ror the defeat of theatrieality. I refer to Michael Fried 's highly polemical
defense of modernist painting, " Art and Objecthood": "1 want to claim th at
it is by virtue of their presentness and instantaneousness that modernjst
painting and sculpture dereat theatre," dedared Fried (1968: 146). (Theatre
ro r Fried is synonymolls with- among other evils- temporality or duration ;
modernist painling is presumably experieneed in a moment of pure presentness:
" It is as though one's experience of [modernist painting] has no durati on­
not because one in ract experiences a Noland or Olitski [ ... ] in no time at al1 ,
b ut bccause at every moment the \York itsclfis whol1y manifest" [1968: 145]).
Stanlcy Cavel1 in 7/¡c World ViClVCd o ffe red a valuable gloss on Fried 's essay.
Generalizing about the formalist painting that sclr-eonsciollsly aekno",ledgcs
its two J imensionality, Cavel1 maintained that " its ftatness , together with its
being of a limited extcnt, mean s that it is totally there, whol1y open to yo u,
absolutely in front of your senses. of your eyes as no other form of art is."
Flatness is essential to this sort of presenee because " total thereness can be
taken as a denial of (physieal) spatiality, of what three-dimensiona l crca tures
\Vho normal1y walk or sit or turn mea n by splltiality. What is in tlJrcc­
dimensional space is not al1 there to the eyes, in the :.enst! n:vcalcd" (1971: 1(9).
1 Ir!
'-11 H l'ifl is l' N I' I " 111 ' MI /1 11\ I 11/ N
This Íl1\ plil:'t tb .ll1\o hlllllal1 hoillg ccrtainly mI pcrformcr wil1 ever h(~ as
1'11 11 Y " pn:scnl" 1\) LIS as a ro rmalist painting by F rank Stel1a or Morris Louis.
By l'ontrast , \1Iinimalisl scul pture according to rried is tainted by thcatric­
ality becausc its "quality of havi ng an inside" makes it " a lmost blatantly
al1thropomorphic" (1968: 129). Clcmcnt Greenberg, who sired this obsession
wilh lwo dimensionality , aJso uses an a ntitheatrical an al ogy to sum IIp the
dilfcrences belween c1assica1 and modernist painting:
From Giotto to Courbet, the painter's first task had been to hollow
out an il1usion of three dimensional space 011 a ftat surrace. One
looked through this surfaee as through a prosccnium into a stage.
Modernism has rendered this stage shall owcr and shal10wer until
now its backdrop has beeome the same as its curtain which has now
become al1 that the painter has left to work on .
(196 \: 136)
The curtain functions as a metaphor ror the process of alternately revealing
and concealing- " now you see it and now you don 't" whereas modernism
is envisioned as in aet of " uneoncealment. "
Of course, the theatre has traditionally considered it a strength rather than
a weakness to coneeal as much as it reveals. Hamlet artieulates a tr uth about
al1 great drama tic characters when he declares, " 1 have that within which
passeth show. " It's a funetion orhis psychological complexity tha t he's no! all
there, spread out on the surface, Iike a modernist painting. ("You wo uld play
tlpon me; you would seem to kno\\' my stops; you would pluck out the hea rt
of my mystery," eomplains Hamlet to Rosenerantz and Guildenstern.) By
contrast, Frank Stel1a affirmed his own commitment to Grecnbergian (and
h'iedian) presenee when he said ofhis paintings that " only what can be seen
is there" (in Glaser 1968: 158).
Fried's coneeption of presence is antitheatrieal in another sense as wel1: it
deplores the reciprocity bet\Vecn performer and audience whieh figures so
prominently in theatrical definitions ofpresencc. "Theater has an audience­
it exists for one- in a way the other arts do not. In raet, this more than
anything else is what modernist sensibility finds intolerable in theater gener­
ally, " notes Fried (1968 : 140). Again , accusing ccrtain modes or minimalist
sculpture of " theatricalily," Fried writes:
[Such] \York depends on the beholder, is incomplete without him ; it
has been waiting ror him. !\nd once he is in the room the work
refuscs, obstinatd y. ~o lel him alone---whieh is to say, it refuses to
stop (;on rrv nt ing hil1l. Ji st;¡ ll\;illt' him , isolating him . (Such isolation
is not solit udc ;my IIH II(' 111;1 11 '; lld l cnn rrontati on is communion).
(1968: 140)
'. 1"
 M I IIIA "NI! II JI ' lIr ~11 1 111 .\
h'it:u cuuld 01" COUISC he lu lkiJ lg a ll(1111 lhe I 1\ 1111' I"IIC:ll rc in I'({ milis/ ' NIIII '
where the perforJners olkn re l"u~oo lO lakl! no lol a IIl1l1 swcr, where lhey rel "used
to stop eonfron ting (an d no dOll bt , in Illally cast:s. 1I1linlentionally J ista nciflg
and isolating members 01' the audience). And ror f ri ed , this is the ver y anti­
thesis 01' presence.
Tbeatre oC mediation
So it's far from dear that theatre ever was the so1c or essential reposito ry al'
presence. And as we've seen in recent years , the very oo tion 01' p resence.
whether in Artaud's "speech before wOl"ds," or Stella's attempt to banis h
"content "- and thus representation- fro m painting, has come under attack.
Indeed , in the age of Derrida and Baudrillard , Greenberg and Fried have
become men the art world loves to bate. Presenee, purity, instantaneousness.
anti-illusionism have all beaten a hasty retreat. Now there's a high premi um
placed on mixing the visual and the verbal. the spatial and the temporal. (One
need only think of Jenny Holzer's verbal aphorisms snaking their way across
e1cctronic billboards.)
But has a body of work appeared that embodies what Thomas K uh n
(1962) would call a paradigm shift in regard to the centrality of presence
in the arts? Certainly in the visual arts, the doctrine 01' "simulationism" is
reflected in a wide variety of wOl"ks ranging from Sherrie Levine's appropria­
tions of Walker Evans or Edward Weston to Mike Bidlo's meticulous copies
of Picasso. Peter Halley's "neo-GEO" recycles geometric motifs from the
formalist paintings of the 1960s and redeploys them i,n a "representational"
manner. These are art works that, in Baudrillard's terms, have been "already
reproduced." But in the theatre, the assault on presence is best illustrated by
one 01' my origin al examples, Foreman's Whal Did He See, where the use 01"
mi Gro phones and Plexiglas reflected a fundamental and over increasing facl
of contemporary life: its mediation by media.
Similarly, Mabou Mines' Wrong Cuys (1981), a theatrical dissection 01'
male bonding in hard-boi1cd detective fiction, also utilized body mikes for
purposes ofmediation rather than amplification. Laurie Anderson's "vocoder"
is an e1cctronic filter than transforms her light, flat voice into a variely or
vocal personae that indude a deep, throaty raspo The resulting Is-it-live-or-is­
it-Memorex uncertainty creates an ambiguous form of presence that secm s
both spontaneous and prereeorded at the same time. In the Wooster Group's
ROl/le J & 9 (1981) two white actresses dialed telephone calls to what sounded
like actual restaurants, and--in broad, Amos n' Andy accents-cl aimed they
\Vanted to order fried chicken ror a birthday part)'. The a udi enc..:e had no
way of knowing whether these conversations werc live or prcrecorded (lo/"
that matter, whether th ose 0 11 the other ellu 01" lhe lilll.! wcrc unrehcan¡ct!
cmplo yees of an ac tual resta ura nt o r a<.:tors im pCr:-tOlla li,¡g I hern ). Bul in any
event , the q uuJi ty o l"lhe SOlln d wa" unm lsl; lbhly ",~·d¡; l kd . as il' wc\1 píékl!d
l l~
1' 111 ' PIUS I Ne 'l D I " M I 111/\ II()N
"1' ,llIlll hcl plltllll' C\le llSioll or la r pcd illlu lhe line . In olller words, tll e
vll iCC:ol lhal W C h\;~1I no lun ger p re Lc nd lo be directly or il1llllediately "present"
111 liS.
A 1I111llber 01' performanccs are explicitly about technological mediation.
I ce Breucr/Mabou Mines' A Prelude (() Dea(h in Ven ice (1979) depicted a
dlaracter wlilOse rclationship with the outside world is doubly mediated: Bi ll
Raylll oll d spoke thro ugh a ventriloquist's d ummy whose only contact \Vi th
ll\ hcr characters was over lhe telephone. Laurie A nderson 's talk-song par­
¡¡hit: "N ew Yo rk Social Life" is about life lived entirely on the telephone. And
III1ICh ofher work explores the unintended imny in Ma Bel\"s ins istent urging
Ihal we use the telephone to "reach out and touch someone." (Anderson is
particularly fascinated by the ways in which communications technology,
which purports to bring us closer together-as mem bers of a "global village"­
aClllally increases our sense of social isolation.)
On one level these artists are simply acknowledging the fact that, like it or
lIol, technological mediation has become an inescapable part of our lives.
Mllst of what we claim to know about the world is acquired vicariously or
"econdhand. We rely on television and other mass eommunicatio ns media to
IIIf"orm us of the public even lS that shape our colleetive consciousness. But we
ha ve no way 01' eonfirming the reality of these events with our O\vn senses.
lite "instant replay" must be identified as such if we're to distinguish it from
I he televised "original." (Consider how frequently the word "simulation"
;Ippears on the screen when television covers a m ajor space shot. ) Sorne years
;I gll a film called Caprico/"/1 f proposed the foIlowing scenario: An ambitious
1 I .S. space mission goes haywire; fearful of losing its con gressional fundi ng,
NASA simulates the rest 01' the mission in a television studio. A nd it seems
"lIlircly appropriate, in the age of simulationism , to have Icarned that a
'illinlessential instance of 1960s "authenticity"- the 1cap that's photographed
111 Yves Klein's Lea]) il1lo the Void- turns out to have been faked.
1ronieally, there's no reason to believe that "being there" is always preferable
1.. lhe omniscient detachment provided by advanced technology. Ccrtainl y
wl.." ve al1 had the experience ofwatching on television as a governmental official
. 11 rives in some distant land. Given the sophistication 01' video technology,
¡I 's l1otllncommon 1'01" the news anchor in New York or \Vashington to have
. 1 hclter view of who's getting off the plane than the poor "eyewitness"
'l'\Hlrler there on the ground.
Ami \ve shouldn't be too quick to assume that Baudrillard puts the final
n;lil in the col1ln of"Artaudian ambition. Holographically projected, computer­
J)l' lIl'I"alcd il1lages in three dilllensions Illay well provide the only means of
l'Ilcctivc1 y rea.liz ing Arlaud ' s ./1'1 o( B/ood (1925), Strindberg's A Drca/11 Play
III)O;!) , 01' rol' tha ! m;lllcr, Ilei ner M üll cr's l1uJ1/ lclmuchinc (1977). Perhaps
11 1\: I;ra 01 lite lOla ll )' pcr:-.ua'i l v~ Il'chnplog i¡,;a l sim ulat ioll (in whieh the
I wl\;c iva h ll! dirfcrcl1cl! di ss\l lVl' ... lw l \'ATII " 111 \.1 Ih illg itse!r" éll1c.1 its rcpresen ta­
11 11 11 in IIIl' f'm m uf ilmll'.c:; ) i1', Wllíll "lllml W ;t~ rea lly scckl ng ..111 lhe whil e.
\1'1

 ~, U} l A " N 1) 1 Ij{' Ii N e-ti C)C ¡,
Artcr aU, this is p r~t;i scl y th u wa y SCl!u la l'. "sá: lltili l!a lly" m ind cll pco r k have
aJ ways viewed lhe ritualistic statc 0 1 úo nsciuusness: SO I11C sorl 01' lIlin d­
altering experience (psychotropic drugs, hypnotically rc petitivc sou nds and
movemcnt patterns) manages to blur thc dis tinction betwecn images and lhe
" realities" they allude too Isn ' t this what Jane Ell en Harrison meant when shc
distinguished hetvveen ritualistic re-presentatioll and theatrica l representa­
tion? In o ther words, the participants of rituals presuma bly " re-live" rathe r
than merely represent, act out, or "impersonate" events of rny thological 0 1'
rcligious significancc. Listen to what Karl Y oung has to say (in his boo k
Drama o("the Medieval Swge) about tbe absence of theatrical representation
in the Catholic M ass:
The impossibility of there being irn personation in the Iiturgy of the
Eucharist arises from the fact that since the early Chnstian centuries
this rite has been regarded as a true sacrifice. The central act is designed
not to represent or portray or mereJy comrnemorate the crucifixion ,
but actually to repeat it.
(1933: 81)
To the secular skeptic, indeed to anyone other than the true belicver, this
amounts to a well-executed con job, a successful aet of "simulation," which
in this context is not generically ditTerent from Baudrillard's technological
sllbstitlltion (translIbstantiation?) of signifier for signified. Perhaps ritualistic
re-presentation (or the illusion ofsuch) is the only real alternative to repres­
entation. And yet ... there 's a big difference between belief and a suspension
(willing or lInwilling) of disbelief. Actually believing that one has returned lo
the " origin" is q lIite different from knowing, 01' e\'en suspecting, that one can
no longer distinguish bet\\'een the original and a reproduction.
But one thing is certain: The balance between \vhat we glean about th
world directly through our sens_cs and what we absorb vicariously through
the media has been irreversibly tipped in the direction of the latter. And to
assume that a few hours of "Iive" theatre wiII somehow restore a health y
sensc of "being there" is naive and selr-deceptive. The ongoing critique 01'
theatrical presence is also valuable insofar as it reminds us that no experi­
ence (no matter how "Iive") is entirely unmediated. The "copy theory 01'
knowledge" \vas invalidatcd long ago. The innocent eye never existed. F ll r­
thermore, the idea that the theatre's " liveness" is - in and 01' itself -a virtue,
a source of automatic, unearned moral superiority to film and television , is
sheer bourgeois sentimentality. In Film ls Evit, Radio is Good (1987) Richa rd
Foreman chose to champion radio rather than "live theatre" as an a lternativc
to the treache ro usly deceptive "realism " of the cinematic image. (One sh o llkl
also note that the only event in recent years to engender the sort of p hysicalized
"audience participation " we assoeia te with Ihe Living Th cat re o flh e lat~ '60s
was a cult film, The R oek)' /Jorror Piclure Slu)li'.)
320
1 11 1 I' R I' SJ: Nc 'l ' (n M I PI ¡\ II ON
Prcscllcc and "hc plague
It 's unc 01" tite suprclIlc ironics of i\rtaud that his major conceits cxi st essen­
tially as literary metaphors. And his most potent metaphor ror the state or
purc imlllanence or presentness is the plague. He credits it with reinventing
"ncccssity" and with obsessively focusing the attention of its victims on the
Ill'rc and no\\': "The plague is a superior disease beca use it is a total crisis arter
which nothing remains excepl death or in ex treme purification " (1958:31).
Thcse words are not easy lo slomach in the age of AiDS. Real plagues, we now
J..now , are the enemy of presence.
i\nd even ir Derrida 's and Baudrillard's critiques ofpresencc didn 't exist,
i\cquired lmmune Dellciency Syndrome might well have invented it. One
ur the rarthest reaching consequences of AIDS is that \Ve will never again be
i"ully prcsent lo one another. Fear of AIDS has robbed us oC the ultimate and
1II0st desired form of presence: the orgasm ic fuckrush, wh ich o bliterates our
awareness of anything other than the present. But now sex is satllrated with
an intensilled conscio usness of both pasl and futurc (" How many other
pcople has s/he slept \Vith?" "Have I become infected? And if so , how long
will the virus remain latent?"). Perhaps we should paraphrase Brecht's adage
lo read. "The union of the organs is the only union and it can never bridge lhe
!',ap of fear."
References
I\rtaud, Antonin 1958. TI/(' T/¡earre ((nd Irs Douhfe. translatcd by M. C. Richards.
New York: Grove Press.
Ilaudrillard . .lean 1983. SimularioflS, translated by Paul Foss, Paul Patton , and Philip
Beltchman. New York: Semiotext(e).
1985. "The Ecstasy of Communication ." In PO.í'rmodem ClIlrwe, edited by lb 1
Foster, 126 34. Lond on: PiulO Press.
Ilazin , André 1967. W/wlls Cinema!, translated by Hugh Gray. Berk eley: Universit y
of Californi a Prcss.
Illau, Iferbert 1977. " I.etting Be Be Finale of Seern: The Future 01' an lilusion. "
In Pe/jórmmu.:e in P osrll1o(/ern CullUre, cdited by Michel Benam oLl and Charles
Caramello, 59- 77. Madison . WI: Coda Press.
Iloorstein, Da niel 1961. Tile lmage: A C/uide ro Pseudo Evenls in Amaica . New York:
Alheneum.
Ilrustcin. Robert 1964, Tile T{¡('(/rre 01 Revolr. Boston: Littk, Brown , and Company.
( 'ilvell . Stanley 1971 , 'File World Viewed. New York : Viking Prcss.
('haikin, Joseph 1972. '/"e 1',.('.\"('/1('(' oi /h(' A I'/or. New York: Atheneum .
1>l:rrida , .Iacques 19'7C,. Oj (¡'·¡II/II/w(ologl'. translated by Gayatri Chakro\'orty Spi v<lk .
Ilaltilllllre, MI): .Iohns Il opki ns IllI iw rsi ly Press.
I(n~. " rhe T hl!i1 lrc 1)1 ( ' IIIl'f I V ;lll d t!J \: ( 'Iusure ~) f Re prcsenlation ." translated
hy 1\1:111 BtI SS, /1/1'1/1/" '1. 11" t ( S IIIIIIIII'I) ' 7 IIJ .
h ied, Mic h;Il'1 IllMl, "/\ 11 ;11111 () l ll~·d ll".,d ' 111 M i/lillwl : trl , cdiled by G regory
n: lt k lllil.. . llc. 47. N ~w, ,,tl, 11' 11 111! ""
\ ~I· I
 MI ' II I I\ I\NII 'l' I'-C ' II NI II ," n

I 'lIchs, I ':lillOr 1()~ 5, "1'rcsclIl:e alllllhc R cvcn~c ,,1 W IIIII I~, Rc-Ihinkill¡: I'he;.!t n; Alkr
Derrida," j>llIjórmillg Arl.l ./oul'//ul () (110:;, 2 HII.! \) : I h' 72.
GlascL Bruce 196~. "QucStiOllS to Stella ami Judd." 111 Mi/fill/III Arl. cJilcd by (in...'­
84
gory Batteock, 148- 64. Ncw York : E.P. Dutton.
Greenbcrg, Clernent 1%1. Arl (lml Culture. Boston: Beacon Press. "TH E EY E F I N O S NO FI X EO

Grotowski, Jerzy 1968. TOlvards a POOl' Th ellrre. New York: Sim o n amI Sehuster.
HaJldke, Peter 1969. Ka.l'par ol1d Olher Play.\', tnlllslated by Michael Ro lolf. Ncw PO IN T ON WHICH

York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Harrison . Jane Ellen 1913. An('Í1'11I Art ({nd Ritual. London: Williams and Norgate. TO REST . . . " 1

Jones, Robert Edmulld 1941. TI/e Dramalú: frnaginalion. New York: 'llleatre Arb
Books.
Kuhn . Thomas 1962 . Tile Slrucwre oi Sci1'l1li!ic Revoluliol1.1. Chicago: University 01' Chanlal Ponthriand
Chieago Press.
Malilld , Judith , and Julian Beck 1971. Paradise No\\'. Ncw York: Random House.
Shepdrd, Sam 1976. Ang1'l Cily al/d Olher Play.\'. Ncw York: Urizen Books.
Sourcc: Translatcd by C. R. Parsons, A!od('f// 1)rallla 25(1) (1982): 154 1(,2.
'erry. Megan 1967 . Viet Rack am! Olher Plllys. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Trilling, Lionel 1972. Sincerily (fnd Auth1'nlicil)'. Cambridge, tvlA: Harvard Univer­
sity Press.
Willctt , John 1967. Tlle T/¡eatre (1' Berlo/I Bree/ll. London: University Paperback s At this point 1 wa nt to ma ke a claim th al 1cannot hope to prove
(third edition). 01' substantiatc but that I bclieve nevertheless to be true : viz. ,
Williams, Ileathcote 1970. AUDe Gamhil: fllternaliolla/ Tile(llre R1'\'iC'lI' 5 (nos. 18 thal theatre and theatricality are at W<lr today. nOI oimply with
and 19). modernist paillting (or modernist painting and sculpture), but
Young, Karl 1933. Th1' Drama oi the Medi1'val Churdl. vol. l. Oxford: Clarendon with art as such - and to the extent that the different arls can be
Press . described as modernist, with modernist sensibility as such. This
clClim can be broken down into three prapositians ar theses:

1) Tlle s¿¡ccess, 1'1'1'/1 Ihe surl'iw¡/. o( Ihe uns has comC' in crea.\'­
ingl)' lo dep1'nd 0/1 Iheir a!Jilily lo c!c:.!¿'a ! Ih1'otre.

2) Arr degeneral1's as it approa(hes the tondilion O/thC'(/lre.

J) 711e concepls oI quali!y ami l'olu1' alld lo Ih e 1'xlenl 11/(/1

the.l'e are ce/ltrallO Orl , Ihe (O/lC1'jJI o/lIrl ilsel!, are I/'I e(//I­
ingfúl, 01' 1('/¡ol/y IIleollillK!úl, only within Ih1' individua] art.\'.
¡l'hal lies between Ihe arls is Iheolre 2

I Ilavc quolcd al Icngth this statcment by the A merican critic Michael Fried
l'xplicilly in order to undcrlinc its ambiguity . On the one hand , he sta tes "that
Ihcatre and theatri cali ty are at war . .. with art as such"; on lhe other, that
"H/I/{{I ¡¡cs belween Ihe elrls i.\ I/¡mfl'e ." In lhe f1rsl case, he says that thealre as
;t11 arl-rorln is un illlp()ssibilit y; il! lIle secolld , he opposes to lhe unacceptable

11l)ti()1l 01' lhcalricalily tllal (I !' ... pn :ilil'il\' .

J)cs r ih.: wlla t F ricd thi l1 b wlr nj 11.1 ~ I\l Vi: 11 impet us lo whal has eve n
~;Jl akcn tire arl s ~C\! IW dlllll ll' Iln' "ol\ t ll"; .11Id st..:V\.' lllics is ind eed a k illd 01'

I' \2.1

 M " ' 1 lI
I hea I l i~a III y, hnHlg h I a hOIl I hy a rc-cx.¡ 111111 1.1 I11111 lo l I he c,; ~)lks ca t cg,~H i/ing Ihe
arts: paillting, sculpl lln:, an.:hil cclll n:: . p0¡;[ IY , IlI Uli l\':. dallc,;c. cl~. : by a sh ift illg
oi' fields between these cades; and also by emrhasis givcn to a devícc whicll is
akin to the theatre, that of spectator/stagc/spectade, seen as process. This
whole phenomenon is called performance.
For F ried. the fa ilure ofthea tre is synonymous with the s urvival o rthc arts
and evcn with their success. Qua li ty or value exists only wilhin él discipline.
not between disciplines. A work such as an audio-visual set- up. let liS sayo or
a performance which brings together film. tex t, and sound elements, cou ld
not possibly meet the criteria of quality and val ue advanced by G reenbergian
critics li ke Fried, who consider that performance, like theatre, is a failure.
It should be pointed out first of all that for these erities there is n o
distinction between theatre and performance. In their eyes, perform ance
corresponds to a regressive manifestation of no interest, since it does not seek
exclusively the specificity of form conveyed by modernism o Pe rformance.
they sayo represents the ultimate decadence of theatre, which modernism , in
its discomfort, has tried to conjure away by making it a theatre of absenee.
emptiness, void.
What would draw performance doser to theatre and theatricality is indeed
the idea 01' presence, which modern philosophy. to a degree, aims to critieize.
To speak of presence again today, in a theoretical framework, can indeed
seem retrograde. But exaetly what presence is in volved? Is it the presence
evinced by con temporary art when there is a meeting between the performe r
and his public. when there is a performance situation (let us leave it at that lor
now) -- is that presence similar to the one which concerns cJassical philo­
sophy? Is the relationship continuous or discontinuous? If it is continu ous
(space-time a priori), one must of COlme concede decadence. But would it not
be more interesting and plausible to think that this neo-presence has b roke n
ties with the old one. or that it is simply different, even without having broke n
i ts ties?
If we seek in performance something to heJp us understand the meani ng
01' a real-tualized presence, what I1rst comes to mind is the he re and now 01'
performance already mentioned , its incidental 01' siluational character. Pres­
ence is temporality, and essentially what interesls us in contempora ry art is
this criterion o f temporality, this eoming into being: the characteristic pres­
cnce 01' performance could be called presentness - that is to say, perform a nce
IInrolds essentially in the present time. But this definition is not enough. sinLl:
our aim is to draw a distim:tion bet\veen cJassical presence and post-m odern
prescncc. One must add that pcrformance unfolds in a real time ami a rea l
place without any imaginary 01' transcendental space-time a priori, that per­
rOrllm nce actualize::; ti me and place. In other words. perforrnance pre::;en LS; il
t..!(ICS not re-presen t. T his di:nincli on throws son1\;' lighl O ll the Jisla n¡;c whidl
;<111 ex isl bc twcen ¡;Iassical prcsence. which is lIl:IX' lldc nt un th e probkm l)r
rcpn;scn tali o n. and Ihi s new ro rm 01' 111l' prcSCI1n'/~ I III . lli oll.
,1
t! IJ" 12 ¡' I N OS N II Irt\ I' () !'O IN 'I' \I N W IIICII l O RI: SI . .
111 hi :, r:1I1\\lU\ \!:,su y 'Tlle Wl~ rk 01' ¡\ rt in th\! Age 01' Mechan ical Reprod uc­
lillll ." Waller Ben jalllin has dcalt at length \Vith prescnee in reIation to the
wnrk ur art, lhe aura which he describes as " the unique phenomenon of a
dislance. however cJose it may be. "1 Mechanical reproducibility, in Benjamin's
view deriving from " the desire of the contemporary masses to bring things
'doscr' spatially and humanly .. .'>4. has heralded the disappearanee 01' this
aura. Reproducibility has made art more aceessible through actuality: "A nd
111 permitting the reprod udion to meet the beholder or lislener in bis own
particular situation, it reactivates the object reprodueed. "5 Benjamin sees
ill actuality a tempora l value, something of the greatest importance for con­
IClllporary art. (1t is instructive to recall at this point that formalist Green­
hcrgian criticism has rebelled against the consideration of time and has
1;lvoured work on space which is peculiar to painting and seulpture - hencc,
1:ried's hostile judgement on everything which might come dose to theatre.)
With performance, it is actuality which is all-important , therefore situation,
presentation.
Elsewhere in his essay , Benjamin comes around indirectly to this idea of
presentation: he explains that exhibition value has rcplaced eult value. That
is lo say, cult value, dependent on the uniqueness of the work. finds itself
l'llnsiderably lessened by the advent 01' reproducibility which makes it poss­
ible to multiply the work, to make it accessible. to bring it close. Reproduction
Icchniques invest art with a proximity or immediaey, a presentness, and a
ll1ateriality, previously unthinkable .
To pursue Benjamin's reasoning and apply it to performance, onc would
almost have to condude that the more performance is expressed by teehnical
means, the more ehance it has of being removed from the thealre or lh eatr­
icality; the more il withdraws from representation into simple presentation;
Ihe more it draws away from aura into simple actuality: the more it dra ws
away from dassical presence to assert a new and different presence. a radical
presence. Jt seems therefore that technical mediation is a neeessary condition
lúr a "good" performance, a performance in whieh presence differs from
what it is in the theatre.
But is there not another \Vay of arriving at this materi ali ty 01' the work
which Benjamin seeks? To go on with his reasoning, if exhibition value
)'ives the work of art its actuality. that exhibition value may be com:eived
as correspondent to two q ualities: 1) the work 's accessibility and therefore
ils proximity. its immediacy; and 2) its multiplicity. There are two ways of
IIlIdcrslanding mulLiplieity: either in the sense 01' multiplication, a direct
wnsequcnce 01" reprod ueibili ly , or in lhe sense of the division of the parts of
a whole, the d isa rt icula l ion \J I' dislllclllhermenl of a work. Very often perform­
:1I1l'C r rcscn ls itselr nol. :1 pr im j :I ~ ;I lolalit y. huI ralher as lhe slIm of aB its
parts , whélher o r I1lll lltc'i~' ;11\.' Jlcl n:iwd 111 rdalion lo the whole. Perfo rm­
alln; appC:IIS much I1l l"~' a ~ d l'i.1 1 IWII I:llill ll 01' Ihc who le Iha n as signifyillg
IIIt;lIi ly , 111 litis respeet. p~' I IlJIIIIII II U' 11 \ ' \· . d •• 11 1 a ve l sion rOl' Illclaphys ics: SCC,
\',

for cxamp1e , all the wo rk that has becll do ne illl \.'t\. 1l1 'rea ls ,Ht vo i-:-: (J ~)a ll I a
Barbara , Mcredith Monk , Demitrios Stratos), l) f\ hnd y (Trisha Brnwll , Si nwll \.:
forti , Yvonne Rainer) , and on sound (Philip G luss) as wor king ITIatc ri als .
This work on materials without concession to idea has its source in min ima lisn1.
Minimalism has carried to its extreme limit the specifi c ilY 0 1' the o bj ~t a s
advanced by formalist criticismo M oreover, F ried insisls on il ca tego rically as
a requirement in a work ofvalue and quality . lt seems increasingly clea r that
the theatricality which Roland Barthes saw as a " density o f sig ns"¡' d oes n ol
correspond to performance when the question is not opacity but the trans­
parent sign.Furtherm ore. the material is used not to signify but to presenl: it
signals more than it signifies. In this sen se, performance carries mi nima list
specificity even farther by confronting the public with él process , an inch oat­
ive breaking-up, whereas the minimalist work still sought to embody, so lO
speak , to codify a meaning (this intent corrcsponding to an iconie ar sym­
bolic function; performance introduces the function of index) .' Performance
aims to show the real without mystification . (My detinition of performa nce
excl Lides any mystifying action , any shamanizing performance - for exam ple.
those of Herman Nitsch - as being regressive for these reasons.)
The desire to show the real in performance. hypothe tically at least, wOll ld
require technical mediation : that would be its direct consequence. Thus, ir
technical mediation serves to amplify a wark - think of the postcard for a
painting, or sOllnd amplification for a concert - it also serves to alter a work
ami to actualize it in a different \Vay from that advocated by Benjam in .
Benjamin thought 01' actuality as distribution or dissemination , but nothin g
prevents us from thinking of it as a consequence of reproduction , a mea ns
01' actualizing art and changing it. That transformation is, in faet , wha l
happened: as a result 01' the spread of reproduction techniques, traditio nal
art-forms have sought their specificity as genres. having abandoned the uniq ue­
ness 01' the work in favour of the proletarianization 01' art. But the adve nt
of rcproduction techniques has given rise to new art-forms such a s cin em a,
lhc main point of rcference in " The Work 01' Art in the Age 01' Mechanical
Rcproduction."
A conseq uence 01' mechanical reproducibility is performance: this desi re lO
discover, not recover, since nothing has been lost in the present case - what is
involved is indeed an obvious presence, not a presence sought after 01' repres­
cntcd: this desire to discover, then , a here/no\\' which has no other referen t
\.~xcept itself. The question ofmediation is thorny, since on the one hand it is
involvcd in lhe phenomen o n ofperformance, and on the other hand perfo rm­
ance is él rcaction to mediaiion , inasmuch as it is distancing in rcspect to
orig in , somcthing lost amI lackin g.
T he d angcr consists once again in thin kjng M med ia I iO Il lIl> rcprcscnla tion .
In \Hder Ilmt I1lctlia tion op.:ratc wilhin Ihe fn ln lcwol'k 1)l' pérl'ol m ancc, it mlls t
he II ndcrsll)otl ill Ihe Mduh a n sense liS anl:,\tc.:I1SI11Jl .. 1 !lll' hmly an d 01' Ihe
11 1~ " liS 1)1 pcrccplll lll I'vkd ia I ion is esse n I iu lIy I 1¡1I1 ,,1"' 11I1I1 1il) 1I 01 d ispl acclllClI l
P(,
" T II E wn ¡ I I N I /" NO I- I XI I I l' O IN I q N WIII('II 10 IU' ST . .
q l' e ncrgy alld slIccessio ll 01' inh:nsitics. It is an inscriplion in prcscnt time:
pc rl'onnancc actuali zcs materi al within prcsent time. The repetition which
l:haractcrizes rcproduclion actua lizes, restores Üs presence , its present time.
In a pe rfor mance \>vhere various modes of presentation and reproduction
are used, there is an interplay of clements between and among themselves
which crea tes an interference. The collision o f elements produces a source
01' energy which in itself casts doubt on Fried 's peremptory judgement on
mllltidisciplinarity.
Ir there is a factor which can act in favour of a source 01' energy in
contemporar)' art, it is indeed t his half-way position , this in-hetween position ,
vehelllently rejected by Fried. W hat interests m e in modernity is the mobi1ity
of instances 01' discourse, that at any moment the addresser becomes the
addressee and vice versa; the fact that there is continuallinking, a continual
displacement between these instances, and that the receiver/addressee is in
continual movell1ent, displacement , or repositioning. This condition ill1plies
that if the position of the receiver is multiple, the object is also divided and
multiple (e .g ., the attempts 01' the futurists and cubists in this direction).
Performance is circumstanti a l, taking into account the performer. the
situation (the here and now) , a nd t he pu blic. This la:>t point, the q\lestio n 01'
the spectator, is the most radical issue in p erfo rma nce . Benjamin stipllla tes in
the essay cited that a consequence 01' cinema has been a dccpening 01' a ppcr­
ception: cinema shows LIS the real as never be fo re. In comparin g Ihe cinema
to psycho-analysis, he maintains that cinema (thererore olso <lrt. suc h as
performance, derived from cinema) reveals to LIS thc lapses in evc ryday lit\:.
Daily events are s tirred up and everything comes to the s urracc . As rncll ­
tioned earlier, everything is e,'posed. The techniques 01' reproduct ion. Bcnja lll lll
says , make "analyzable things which had heretofore ftoated along IInn OLicel.l
in the broad stream 01' pen::eption."9
Again we have recourse to what is usually taken for granted, this ill­
helween containing that to which we do not pay attention , this in-hellVeen
situated between instances 01' discourse. " Evidently." Benjamin states, " a
different nature opens itself to the camera than opens to the naked eye - if
only bccause an unconsciously penetTated space is substituted for a space
consciously explored by man. "lo He offers amon g other examples that of a
man walk ing and our awareness of this movement in relation to a split-second
rragll1entation such as cinema makes possible. In concluding, he maintains
lhat the camera "introduces us to unconscious optics as does ps)'choanalysis
lo unconscious im pulses. "1 1
Similarly, one ean say that performance lifts the barrier for us to the ex­
perience ofthe unconscious, whether it be visual , auditory, kinetic, instinctive,
nr other. As Benjamin concludes further on: "From an alluring appearance
ni' persuasive st r ucture 01' sound the work of art of the Dadaists became
an inst rllmc nl of ballistics." 12 T hc spcclator is j a rred . jostled. The a ltitudc to
be au o p tcLl i:; 110 lo ngcr a con tcm plali vc Oll e, such as onc m ig ht ass umc in
\ ~'/
 1\1 lIt 11""- AN 1) ' 1'l ~ ,"'nNI ! 1, .,(; \
I't on t nI' a pailllillg. IlIIages tlHm;1! pas!. In llow rt lll' dllOlher Wll h l1 u l'Olll\!S­
síon to prt!sen t o r P ¡1Sl. T he sflt!l:lu ln r is pl al:l'd 111 ;¡ IH)si tion 0 1 an ticipall OIl.
and this is what causes a shock. l'ac.:J wi th th.: distllel11 bcrmcn t and (he
decentral ization 01' the work of arL the spectator is a lwHYs wa iting ro l' so rne­
thi ng. It could be said ol' this spectator, since the nature al' perrortna nl;c ¡ti
above all event, that he is like the involuntary wi tness o f a situatio n, Benjami n
describes this new kind 01' spectator as an "examiner, but an absenl-m inlléd
()J'le,"ll someone "whose eye finds no fi xed point on wh ich to resL" A na log­
ously, it can be said that performance is a work in w hich "the ey e fin us no
fixed point on which to rest."
Tne "ontological-hysteric" theatre of Richard Foreman exempl ilies lh i¡¡
eye which finds no fixed point on which to rest. Mo re t ha n ayear ago, a ft c r
creating close to a dozen plays and directing an opera, Foreman closed Lbc
theatre which he had had on Broadway since 1968 and returned to cinema to
make a film entitled Stfong Medicine , which will soon be released . But when
he arrived in New York in the sixtics, he was immediately ,in touch with lhe
experimental theatre, and he confesses that his theatre was definitely in flu ­
enced by cinema.
Anyone who has witnessed a Foreman production has indeed experienced
a particular frustration . because in his productions neither the eye - nor the
ear . is able to find a fixed point on which to rest. The spectator al Forem an 's
plays is bombarded by a multiplicity of visual and auditory events . A t [he
visual leve!, there are continual changes 01' the geometrical stage set, even
wilhin an act. The displacement of pieces of furniture and parts of the sel
alter the context, either by giving it greater depth or by creating various levels
stacked in depth or in height. The lighting also ehanges continually; iLs
transformations may occur slowly or rapidly and may affect stage and h Ollse
alike: the spectators may suddenly find themselves bathed in light when lh
spotlights are turned on them without warning. As for the sound. everythi ng
is recorded: cal' horns, sirens, whistles, bits of jazz, as \Vell as Ihe dial og Ué
itself. The script is fragmented, made up of short, aphoristic, unconnectetl
sentences.
¡\ t times, the text is taken up by one or several actors who sejze a few wo rds
and repeat them in a neutral, emotionless tone. The text is almost shouted .
The robot-actors execute very precise movemcnts: interrupted in full tli gh t,
they may remain frozen with one lcg in the air, or they may repeat a m ovc­
ment - a procedure which might be better described as a displacemcnt within
the stage architecture. Some of these movements serve to modify clemen ls
of the set, all this being, in Foreman practice, the result of integrated stagc
direction. Foreman himself is intcgrated into the actions 01' thc actors. USlI­
ally seated in front 01' the stage in full vicw. wit h his back to the audicllce, he:
givcs d irections, regulates sound an d li ghl.
rn the creation of his pla ys. Foreman docs nol limil his in tcrvcn tioll lo
dircction al one. I k controls cvcry lh ing Jt\ a Vt:ly ~ ', Íl" way. T hcrc ¡ ~ O(llh ing
¡"I R
1 11 1: E 'r' 11 1 I N 11'" N 11 1 1.\1 1) l' ti 1 N 1 iI N W 11 If' 11 I () In 'i I , ,
a))oll' 111111 Wllld l tl'ca Jls .101m C agc 's use nf l!h ancc happcnings. Quite the
opposi (\.:: fUI' F prcn talt, chancc crcalcs an expcctation far too reassuring anJ
prcdictuhle. wlw n!a s cvcrything should be surprising. Foreman succeeds in
l'I1t1rounding his audiencc by means of very detailed and careful staging
whcre eause and etTect do not relate. Through a rapid succession of all kinds
01' dTccts, the spectator experiences the kind of shock impression sought b y
Benjamin. and he must lend himself to the actuality of the work before him .
In order to retain LOntrol 01' all his effects. F oreman is in turn \Vriter, play­
wright, director, stage-manager, actor, and set-designer. Yet he admits that
ror hlm the text is all-important, and in this sen se he contradiets all perform­
ance theory wruch seeks to abandon the text in order to investigate the ve ry
tIIateriality of things. starting with hody and voice. In his second manifesto,
hc describes what characterizes this syncopated. broken texl:
The desire to write a certain kind 01' sentence (gesture) is a kin to the
desire to live ·· be - have the world be in a certain kind 01' way . (Art
as a solution to what is - Musi!. Through style, through smallest
possible units. Bricks determine one style of architecture, stone
another, etc.) '4
Thus he fragments and disconnccts textual e!ements. Everything tak es place
nn the stage as it does in the head. Foreman adds that he also wishes to:
Reach the pre-conscious: remove the personality.
Make the acts ofthe play not be "aimed" acts but isomorphic with
the pre-conscious and its richness. In other words . acts that on each
occasion evoke the .\'ource - rather than acts (as in daily life) which
pick an object of desire and, in isolating that object from the whole
constituting field, are the very means by which we cut ourselves off
from the source. IS
What Foreman demonstrates, in fac!. what his text illuslratcs, is the very
11Iateriality of the text. and in this respect he subscribes to the logie of
performa nce, accepts the very materiality of the script: a script in its rough
slate, an actualized script, a text in process with itself, within itsel!'. Paradoxic­
ally. Foreman uses a stagcd script to disarticulate theatre, to reject its code.ln
Ihis case, theatrc turns inwards. ami the discourse is sLrambled a ndjumbled,
To he a proper SI'!iC I'¡\ rolt is to he in two places at once.
1) Secing whcre il is (Ih.: arl)o
2) Scci n g whc rc y o/l Ol!! (w:III;hin g ).
!\rt sho uld aw¡]kcn a IHltll::\.'1' li ll ' :111 il lllll crsion in bei ng-.:onscio us-of
pl'm:(;ss . ' . ,1 "
\ '1 J
 n' ~ ,. , , ~ I , . ~ \ , .. I $ l ' 1. .. I I ..... 1 ! ! " " • I I I ,. ,-.J. 1 .. . ~ ,. ' I l • ." 1 .. . f • I I '-- I ~ I • ""- f- l ! "l ' • • •

For~ lll an Wl l lIl s l h~ sp cc lalllr Il n l l o COlIl'l ll l c.111 011 Ihe 111I1Ig , huI l o II )( lk X hle :1 dl ~' II ~!.I,, 11 ,,1 I.h ~~1! ICIIlIS ill Frcllclc, iIlSIIIl/{'I',\' d(' discollrs. dl 'Slil/lIll'/lr.
d".I'lillill¡IIIt ·. 1t ',','{'II'llr scc Tcre llcc I law kc:;, ,')'ll'IIclumlislI/ 1I1/(1 ."'·('I/'¡oIÍl·.\· (llcl'kdcy,
bd wccn a nú al11 0ll g t1llngs, anu I tl li slclIlII unk' l 111 Ir ~a l' what is bl!! w\!C 1I t h ~
1'>77), cspcc c:lll y his chapler 011 'The SlrUCl u n;s 01' Lileralun::' pp. 59 102.
works: hence lhe ullimale rraglllcnla lion l,f d~ I1I C llts and l he ir sphtti ng IIp 1) Benjamin, p. 1 37.
Th is purpose justifies his mania ror manipu laling elfccts. 10 Ibid .. pp. 238-239.
At this point, I should likc to return lo lhe "Seeing where ;1 is , , , Sccing 11 Ibid., p. 239.
where you are" to underline, in the case of Foreman, this idea 01' lhe equivo­ 12 1bid .. p. 240.
cality and scrambling of instances of the theatrica l code, From hi s d ual, 13 Ibid , p. 243.
14 Richa rd Foreman, " O ntological- H y ~teric Manifcsto 11 (Jul y, 1974)," in P/ays ami
Duchamp position of vie\ver-viewed to voyeurism there is bUI a shorl úis­
Mal1if'e.l'IO.I', cd. Katc D avy (New Y ork , 1976), p. 135.
tance. This constitutes part of Foreman's irony. 15 Ibid., pp. 135-136
What does Foreman do wi th eroticism in the theatre? Ridiculous literal­ 16 Ibid., pp. 143,145.
ness, the de-eroticizing of sexua l a11usion which puoctuates tbe nud ily of bouies,
and a multiplicity of explicit gestures constit ute a distancing from any aes­
thetics ofseduction, from any pleasure for the spectator. But a11 lbis contri b­
utes to Foreman 's cha11en gi ng 01' the theatre and underli nes the latent sex ual
basis of a11 gesture in the theatre, which is situatcd between exhibitíon (lhe
actor's pla.yi ng) and manipulatíon (the director's). Equivocality is maintained
beyond the viewer-viewed in the way Foreman places the theatre on trial
through the demonstration of its processes.
The last observation I should like to makc concerning Foreman - I a m
prompted to this by his constant use 01' "seen language" · has to do with bis
obsession with framing. E\leryth ing \vith him is a q uestion of focus, of captur­
ing or recovering the space offered to view: hence, the constant modíficati on
of the sets, the actors' performance to form tablcaux , the farceful pul1ing or
multifunctional strings linking objects, moving sets, and reducing planes.
Space with Foreman is cinematographic, capable of revealing the whol e as
wel1 as detail through a succession 01' planes. Time is also cinematographic:
sequential time which parades befare the eye ofthe spectator and carries him
along in the expectation of the unknown and the immemorial. To return lo
the hypothesis taken from Benjamin, ) suggest that Foreman's theatre il1 u~­
trates how theatre today, in order to overcomc the impossibility of theatre.
has chosen the path of cinema.

Notes
\Valter Benjamin, "The Work 01' Art in the Age 01' Mechanical Repro ducti o l1 ."
in 1//umil1l1!iol1s, ed. Hannah Arendt. transo Harry Zohn (Ne\\' York , 196R),
p.224.
2 Miehacl Fried , "Art and ObjectfiJOod ," in Arljórum (June 1967), rpt. ¡\Ilinima / / 11'1.
A Crilica/ Anlll%gy, ed. Grego ry lJatteoek (New York , 1961;). pp . 139- 142 .
3 Benjamin , p. 243.
4 (bid. , p . 225.
5Ibid. , p.223.
6 Roland Barthes, " Baudelaire ' ~ Theatcr:' in Crili('({/ E.\·.WlVS, transo R ichard I lo wu rd
(Eva nstoll, 1972) p. 26.
7 F or él discussioll ofthe cOllcept of k ofl , iIlCk:x , alld sylllht)1 ill Ihe Iheatre, se!! Kc ir
F.lam , Tite Scmioli(',I' o!, T ltcalrc alf(l !)rll/I/( / (1 \1 11t111I1 , II)XO), pp. 21 :!()

, ,1 ) 1'1 1

85
LI ST ENIN G TO M U SI C
Perfo rmances and recordings
Theodore Gracyk
Sourcc: TI/e .!ou/"Ila! o(AeSlhel ics I1nd I1 rt Criticism 55(2) (1997): D9 15 1.
I
Kathlcen M . JI iggin s is one 01' the few philosophers to calI attention to th e fa
that in contemporary society " it is only in the <lbe rrant case that one experi­
ences music in a live, group form at.'" Recording technology is our dom ina n t
mode 01' musical reception . I wi sh to contrast this fact with Paul Th om'!)
judgment that a world without musical performance " would be aesthetica lly
poorer than tlle world we live in ,"2 amI Thomas Mark 's assertion that, whell
one wants to become aequainted with a musical work , " the handiest wa y" is
usually by means of a performance .' The latter is quite douhtful. In order to
become acquainted with a ritual trumpe t piece from the Tibetan Buddh ist
tradition o r a Shostakovich symph ony , most people will find it hand icr to
purchase a compact disc than to attend a performance. !\Ithough most people
do not yet confine themselvcs to recorded music, my arguments are directed
again st th e idea that listeners inhabit an aesthetically poorer world when the
technological mediation of recordings substilules for Iive musical performance.
Most theorists simply ignore lhe issue amI proceed as if it were obvio us
that music is a performing art. When recordings are menlioned , t hey a re
usually treated as ancillary to performances . (Most of the recenlliterature 00
musical performance focuses on issues surrounding either " authentic" pero
formance or the relationship belweeo works and their nota tion.) An interest­
ing exception is Stan Godlovitch, who asks, " ls it mere1y a conlingen t f<Lel
that music is a performing art? .. . Is it just an accident oftechnology tha t fo r
some centuries cer ta io ma n ually skilled specialist:; were needed to in terw ne,
as it were, bet ween m usic invento r:; ano their auJ iencc'!''-l !\I lh o ugh a ttcll d
ance at musical per fo rmance WélS hi sto rica lly rCll uinx l n l" uudicllccs in lerestcd
in m us ic, G odl ovi tch recognizes Ihat lh ~ sh ift l o 1\'('ord i llgS a s our p rim ar
n'
1\ ' \
liS 11 N I Nfi ' 1 11 M I J S IL"
mode III ;1 1,;1,; \:<;<; ~ lIg~\!s ls tha! Illusi\.: is Ilut \!~senlia\ly a per rnrlllillg arl. Like
11\) 01 . he seCli thi:; as om Illss.
O n lhe \Vholc. a limitcd nUlllher 01' rcason s arc regularly put forth lo
recommcnd attendance <lt musica l performances over Iistening to reconjings
nI' the same musical works . My response is to emph asize ways in which
prevailing technologies d im inish or rectify the " rad ical d ifference between
live perform a nces (of wha tever kind) ami recordings. " 5 T hc t\\'o most obvi­
ous dcllciencies of rcco rdi ngs are the lack of visual data a nd the absence of
the social event of the performa nce space. Both can be surmounted through
available technological substitutes. In some respects, recordings are superi or
as a mode of acquaintance with musical \Vorks. So, although our \Vorld is
different when most peopl e opt for recordings over performance, on balance
it is not clear that it is "aesthetically poorer. "
Crudely, by a musical performance I mean a Pllblic situation in which a n
audience attends to the actions 01' one or more performers. during which
specified sounds are intentionall y generated for the express purpose of bein g
attended to as mu sic by the audience. (' In other words, I a m eoncentrating
on live performance for <In alldience, a nd nol performance in the sense ofthe
mere playin g 01' music, as when one practices the piano or plays only for
oneself. !\ s Godlovitch observes, these count as performances only beca use
of their relation to "full " performances. 7 A perform ance may or may not
involve performance of independently identifiable works; when it does. there
may be various degrees 01' accuracy in executing the composer's d irections ror
performing the work.
Philip Alperson notes that musical performance "always invol ves format­
ive decisions about how a piece should sound , i.e .. decisions about the form
or composition orthe piece ." ~ But it is also a necessary condition of a musical
performance that the sounds to which the audience attends are sequenced
and coordinated by human performers in r eal-lime, in the presence of an
audience, for that audience. The audience is invited to observe the aetion s
which generate these adju stments of acoustic properties, so that appreciation
nI' a performance inc\udes evaluation of these actions (amI not merel y of the
acoustical resu1ts). ~
When al1 decision s about sequencing and coordinating are made at one
time, lo be suhsequently executed by a machine (whether a simple music box,
a player piano. or the most complex of computer systems), there is simply no
performance. Thus thc mere playing of recordings for an audience is not a
Illusical performance, even if " performers" adjust the playback equipment
while the auJience listen:;. Experiencing Edgar Varse's installation of Poeme
acctroniqu(' a t the Br ussels Wo rlJ I :¡¡ir 01' 1951; did not constitute attendance
al a Illusica l pcrr~mnu m;c . W hi h.: Ih..: Illusical experience was tail ored for a
sp..:dJi¡; pc rl'omlanl.:l..: spm:c ,1I ul alld icllcC. alld while technicians may have
lidd lcd wi lh Ihe playhad , ~'qlti P II I "1I1 dlll illl' il s use. their actions were not
olferl!J as dc m..:nls rOl ap J1t ~'~ 111 111111
 M I I Jl I\ ANU ' 11 ¡ 1 ~ I I NIII - III,
J\ cenlral Ira i! 01' record ~d 1I111 sil: b ,llll l t1 11 1',l s IlI ilkc scqllcndng dL'cisil)nS
at one timc for alldicnces lo reCOVl: r al a htl cl time. J\nolhcr is Illal. Ihe
audienee has opportllnity lor indcfi ni Lcl y muny CXpOSU1"CS to those ueeisi 0ns
(but one and only one exposure wi th él live performance). I'ina ll y. with
recorded music, the a udience is often unabl e to determine t he precise nalllrc
of the achievement that led to the sounds recovered upon pla yback. Is o ne
listening to a virtuoso guitar performance dming Les Paul's recording o l'
"Lady of Spain ," or mercly a marvel of engineering, since Paul actuall y
constructed it through a series of overdubs? As D enis D utton em pha sizes.
every reeording introduces the possibility " that the natme of the achievement
invo lved. , . may be misunderstood 01' misrepresented."lo
11
The first objection to recordings as our primary means 01' hearing music is
rooted in certain positions on the ontology ofmusical wmb. Musical work s..
on one point of view, are integrally linked to their performances. The most
extreme version hoJds that musical works simply are performances. In Linda
Dusman's words, " the alldience's heari.ng of a work is the final step in its
creation. In other words, music does not exist until it is heard in perfonn­
ance. "1 1 When musical notation exists that has not yet been interpreted in a
performance, rhe musical work docs not yet exist. (A corollary 01' this posi­
tion denics that anyone can become acquainted with a musical work simply
through analysis 01' the score, evidence notwithstanding that Mozart and
Haydn wcre abJe to do so .)
Such analyses of musical works invite the inference Ihat because works
necessarily demand musical performances, a world in which audiences only
listen ro recorded music would be a world without genuine music. It is
difficult for anyone interested in music to regard such a world as anything bul
infinitely poorer than onc with music. DlIsmal1. fOT instance, holds that only
live performances present the experience of the music's "creation" in the
"perrormative moment." lIowever, this general position on musical works is
implausible in holding that we cannot take an interest in a musical work dis·
tinct from an interest in a specific performance of it. Fmtbermore, one co uld
grant Dusman that a musical work "does not exist until it is heard" with o ul
requiring that it be heard in performance (that is, dming its real-time exec u­
tion). In short, it will not serve as a foundation for objections to listeni ng to
recorded m usic . 12
SlIch positions are put forth as an aIternative to musical Platonism , whic h
takes a musical \York to be an abstract sound-structure or a sel of pllre pitc h
relatiollships. So lon g as the appro priate relat ionshi ps are accuratcly inslan li·
ateJ , musical Platoni sls are gcncrally indiffercnt i.lbo ut thc means lIscd Lo
gen erate the sounus heard by rhe uudic ncc. l' BCG III SIl il is illdilTcrcnt lo Ihe
mea ns of instanliat iol1 , Pla ton ism sholll d 1l(ll lÚVIlI IIltel llbllCc al pcrl'onnum:es
.1.',1
U 'i
I I S I IIN I N I; 11' MU S I ! '
over Iis h':lI ill)' '" 1 1.~ \ l rdillgs . Yel recent dehates abollt lhe atlthentic perrorlll­
anl:c Ill 11VCll lc nl have cOlltribllteJ to a new varianl of Plat onism. onc that
explicitly links musical works to their performance means. Without equating
works with their performances, JerrolJ Lcvinson and KendaJl Waltoll pro­
posc that specific mean s of performance are cssential elements of musical
works. 14 (For exampl e, one does not have a performance of Beethovcn 's
violin eoncerto if one executes the soloist's part on an electric guitar.) Because
it is more generous about what belongs to a work, \et us ca)] this position
"liberal " Platonism.
Neither Levinson nor Walton inlerprets liberal Platonism as implying that
only live performances can instantiate Beethoven 's music. But the situation is
not as clear cut as it may initiaJly appear. While Walton thinks that musical
appreciation hinges on "what activities sound to the listeners as though they
are going on ," Levinson insists that it hinges on what reaJl y is going on. 15
Godlovitch and Thom similarly contend that authenticity is a featme of
perjórl11ances, not merely of ,1'ounds. I (' It is not even enough to use the right
instruments; one must play thcm in the normal fashion. These arguments
often shift their focus to what thc audience observes during a performance, a
dimension taken up in the next section.
The sticking point is how strictly to take the notion of an authentie per­
formance " mean s." For surely performance (in the strict sense outlined aboye)
was the intended means for knowing virtually every musical work , and not
mercJy the means par excellence. few studio recordings doc ument actual
performances: there is no audience, unless one counts the engineering staff,
and innovations of the last half-century permit assemblage of sounds in any
order on the vertical and horizontal axes of sound. A collage is assembled
from the best "takes" of a work 's vario LIS movements or even segments of
movements. 17 Record listeners can count on hearing a better execlItion of
Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, recorded or live , than was heard at its disastr­
ously sloppy premiere in 1808. (The standards 01' studio production have led
to corresponding high expectations for live performance.)
In light of these facts, Linda Ferguson employs liberal Platonism to spurn
these edited and manipulated recordings of the familiar canon of Western
music. Because tape compositions are played to audiences without being
performed, Ferguson says that tape compositions are simply not music: "the
sonorous aspect ofmusic has been traditionally understood to be the product
orthe proeess ofperforming, not the product ofthe process ofcomposing."l o
Tape compositions are "objects of sonic art," temporal but not dynamic. I
llave been avoiding the topic 01" tape compositions, whieh can ol1ly be heard
through rccordings. But throllgh an analogy with the process of tape com­
position. Fcrguson suggests that audiences listening to studio recordings
01" I3ct'lho ven sy l1l phonic~ are no l cxperie ncin g m lisie; these. loo, are pieces 01'
s(mic arl, "produceJ" bll \ II~'I pC I fO rlnc~I. I 'J Whik Wa llon , Levinson, a mI
!llher Ii bel',d Pla lonbts mi/.\hl a d~lI "wlnl !,,1." ' hu I Icco rdi ngs are 1he historically
 M 1].1) i 1\ 1\ N 11 ' II\"~ II NI II ,"U'
aut hcnlil.: mClln s fUI' k Ot>w i ll~ Lilpl: ¡';l1l1 l p\l'>I I II'II'>. I h ey CUllt1nt r~gu rJ sllld i(')
recordings as aulhe nlic insla nlial ions 1ll" ully 1hm!:l h v Ikc tllU vctl or Wug ncr.'u
To stretch a f;uniliar concept, slIch arg ulllcnls against "protllll:CU " rcco rd­
ings rest on technol ogical p hilistinis m. By techno lo gical phili:>tinisl11 , I mean
the tendency to approve of on ly those tech nologica l conlribulions lhat a re
contingently familiar or conve ntionaL FllrthemlOIe, any argument based on
an o ntological position sidesteps the qllestion 01' whe lher él world fllled wilh
recorded m Llsic is aestheticall y poorer.
To take a brief detoLlr. consider E dmund Gurney ' s reason :. for accepti ng
musical Platonism. The essence 01' a musical work . he contcnds , is its melod i
and harmonic combinations. Any timbre or "colour-qllal ity" experien ced in
performance is "enlirely distinct from musica l form " or the wo rk proper. 21
G urney offers two reasons lo believe this amI not. say, liberal Platonism.
F irst, musical works are " reproducible in memory wit h the very minim um 01"
realisation ofany actual sound-quality." Thc timbres \Ve have heard during a
performance "can be dispensed with " or even changed (substituting a better
sound) Y Secondly, it is only " by foregoing special rights as lo colour that al!
sorts 01' bcautiful music ... can be brought horne to people's own firesid es.
and made a fea t ure o f ordinary domestic lif'C. " Given the infrequency with
which audiences get to attend performance o f any g iven work , it is largely
through " the clear monochrome of the pianoforte" or even a "cheap har­
monium " that most people get any chance to arrive at a "t rue appreciation "
of oratorios and symphonies. 23
In other words, Gurney starts with lhe means of music retrieval available
in Victorian England , in light 01' which musical works cannot be stored " Iike
pictures, contained in a national gallery which can be walked round once a
week. " 24 Since neither human memory nor the available technology of nota­
tion amI parlor piano orfer access to a composer's intended perfolmance
means amI attendant timbres, Gurney concludes that only features that re­
occur in ordinary circumstances can be counted as features of musical works.
In short, he is a technologieal philistine, building prevailing practices and
technologies into his ontology. It did not occur to him that this situation was
an historical contingency soon to be challenged by composers such as Debussy.
In saying that recordings do not give us music, Ferguson similarly down pla y:.
the contingency of the technologies available for delivering musical works
to audienccs. Atnrst blush , one might respond that liberal Platonism does
quite the opposite. acknowledging the contingency 01' technology by lin ki ng
instantiations of a musical work to the technologies in place al the time the
work was eomposed . But I am not persuaded; in telling us that specific tech­
nologies are necessary elements of certain works , to be mani pulated in cir­
cumscribed ways, it tells us that anything clse violales lhe rules o rthe gatne as
traditionaJl y undcrstood. But is this nOI wh a l is al issll L!? G ive n lhe rreque ncy
wilh which people listen lo recü rd ings, w hy n:scrvc (llIr accolad es ror okler
lcc hn o hwjcs')
Y\( ,
l i S I 1,: N I N I; I 1) M i lS I I .
( 'ollsid l!1 cllk , 11 ('odlo vitch's cX<llllplcs: lute pieces c;ln rl ol be pla ycd on
!'lIitar, :tnd sonlcl hing has gon e am iss when Qlle is told Ihal guilarist John
Williams pl ayetl a Renaissance lute piece at his recitallast night. " What is it
thl'n? !\n imitation like rake vanilla."25 But as Godlovitch also recognizes ,
ullless one has a fetish ror lutes 01' for authenticity, a guitar recital 01' lute
pieces may be a perfee tly sa tisfactory listeni ng experience. Likewise, even if
I'ecorded music cannot offer a genuine instantiation of an older m usical work
(even ir one believes th at it is technically not l11usic) , recordings may still offer
a superior listening experience. In some respects, such as my ability to listen
lo what I wanl (or imitations thereo!') , when I want, it may be my " handiesC'
amI besl means ror getting a satisfactory sen se of what such an instantiation
is like.
M y position is that however a recording of a traditional work comes about,
no matter how the sounds are manipulated or generated in the production
slage, the sounds heard durin g normal playback offer either a reproduction
Dr a reprcsentation of its per/órmance . The difference hin ges on the degree of
aural and sequential fiddity between the recording's output and the sequence
01' sounds that were recorded . Undoctored recordings of live performances
reproduce a performance. Les Paul's " Lady of Sp ain " is a representation 01' a
performance. Performances, in turn, provide more or Iess satisfactory access
to works. But recordin gs, as either reproductions or representations of per­
rormances, do offer access (albeit complicated) to works .26
No\V consider an aoalogy . I do not know Lucas Cranach the E lder's
painting 01' Adam amI Eve. When a friend mentions that the fruit looks m ore
like oranges than apples , 1 confess that I do not know the work. Suppose
my friend then shows me a photograph of herself sitting at a desk, taken
while holding Elaine Pagels 's Adam, Eve. and the Serpelll. A reproduction o f
Cranach 's work is clearly visible on the book jacket. "T here," says my rrieml,
"Do you see the book jacket? Don't those look like oranges to you?" This
photograph of the art reproduction affords an indirect acquaintance with the
('ranach piece (amI ir il does not, one gcts no acquaintance with the hislory
orvisual art by taking a stan dard art history course). Similarly, by represent­
ing the sonic dimension of performances of musica l works, recordings pro­
vide acquaintance with musical works, including oncs can th a t can only be
authentically instantiated through performances. Controversial as they are , we
can appreciate a good deal about Bach's Go/dberg Varia/ion.\' by listening to
(ilcnn Gould's 1955 and 1981 piano recordings, despite the facts that his use
01' a piano is inauthentic amI there were no performances in the strict sense.
Levinson righlfully divorccs lhe factual question ofwhether él performance
is alllhcnti c from lhe eva lllalivc q uestion 01' whether it is worth hearingY
( ) lI e can si lllpl y acknowb lgc I ha l G Ollld's slUdio recordings of the Go/dberg
I orillliol/s are SOllll.!w ha l 1I 11 ~ ,," V~·l1 li \ \J1.Il ami even "i na pprop ria te, " the n
shr ug ~)Jl c ' s ::;ho uldcrs ¡¡ lid "S~ " "il l \\' 11;11 '1" Dcs pil c I ;crg u ~on's da im lhal lhe
a h!iCl1cc 0 1' rca l-l ime p Cl lclIl l1 :1I 11 I 111 1'1 (t dll ~'cd nlllsic" n~ce s~aril y rcsults in
1.1'1
 1\'11' 1"1\ i\NI) I' Ht ,' II N O I III ,,"
an inl"crior expcricncc, I co ndud.: tll<lt ap pea ls I() olllolugy ul tiJll atdy bc!..!. lhe
question.
III
A second c\ass of objections to recorded music's displacement of perform­
ance allows that recorded music affords acq uaintance with musical work:;,
but reeordings offer a debased acquaintance. (After all, looking at a photo ­
graph 01' someone holding a book on which there is an art r eproduetion is
not the best way to beeome acquainted with the artwork .) T hese objection s
cmphasize the degree to which musical performance is something more
than the presentation 01' sequenced sound. Recordings invüriably disru pt
the audienee's capacity ror full engagement with the actions producing the
sounds.
Until recently, it \Vas plausible to contend that recordings could not cap­
ture the full sound of a musical performance. As an empirical c\aim about the
limitations of recording techllology, this objection had some force in the tlrst
half-century of rccording, when technologicallimitations neeessitated radical
rearrangements ror most of the standard repertoire. But this version of tbe
objcetion is pretty much prec\uded by improvements in both recording and
playback technology . A more compelling variant emphasizes that recordings
violate "the faet that in the coneert hall even the most introspective performer
is playing.for listcners who are listeni'llg lo him. In recording, the bond is
broken."2~
How are we to flesh out this objection? Again , I \ViII ignore performances
that are entirely improvised, stage works with a visual and drama tic elemen t,
such as opera, and works that cannot be performed in real-time, such as tape
compositions. Let us concentrate on orthodox works of "c1assieal" music,
sueh as a Haydn symphony: in this case there is an identifiablc musical work,
whieh allows 01' multiple instantiations that can be perrormed in real-ti me.
For such musie. I do not dispute the value 01' attending perrormances, bul the
issue here is whether \Ve are aesthetically poorer ror their loss.
On Thom's detailed account of what is to be gained by attending a per­
formance , each performance situation invites six typcs of active, playful
attention. Audience attention can play bet\veen the performer's earlier and
later aetions, between one perrormer and another when more than one is
present, between tlle content and its vehicle, between this and other perrorm ­
ances of the same work, bctween aspects of the performance a nd 01' t he
audienee members' lives, and between events within the perform ance spact'
and those outside it. A " good audiencc" altends to all SiX. 29 Vet each 01' lhe:;c
types o frla y is ava ilable to someonc Iis tening In rccnnlcd IllllSic. For the f1rsl
threc. a recordi ng's repeatabi lity suggcsl s SOIllC sll)1Cf"lnri ly. a nd rel~ord ln g.s
provide un parallelcu opporluni ty I"or compllrillt' tJ il'lcn:n l ill lcrprCUlli(\ns 0 1
Ih\.' gamc work.
\\H
" "" NIN( i I II M il," \('
T hi.! a ll q~l!d supllriorily 01' pcrl"omlancc \Vould set m to be something Illore
spccifk a boul Dile 01' more 01' these six rclationships. !\nd it must derive from
lhc audiencc's presence in the pcrforming space. Wi th respect to the tirst three
01' Thom'::; aspects, it is tempting to infcr that since live perrormances of
Illusical works requi re interpretativc activity on lhe part of the performers,
appreciation ofthe interpretative activity is enhanced by experiencing it wh ile
it is being executed . No matter how accurately a sound recording conveys lhe
sounds of a musical performan ce, Thom and G odlovitch are concerned that
it eliminates the audience's experience 01' inlerpretalion in real-time (and not
simply, as before, 01' the musical \Vork). Recordings deny the opport unity to
witness and evaluate the perfonner' s skills in executing s1Jch interpretations.
In short, this objection is grounded in the idea that the art of composing
musical works is distinct from the art of performing music. Access to the
former through a recording deprives one 01' the latter, which is a contingcnt
yet highly valuable part of our musical heritage. One migllt even contend that
tlle audience is chealed (or cheats itsell) by Iistening to records instead of
attending performances.
Godlovitch is one of tlle fe w writers to address repeatedly the potentialloss
of performance from our musicallife. His argument takes off from a distinc­
tion introduced in the last section's discussion 01' authentic perrOnll anCe,
between the sounds produced in a performance and the activities taking place
that generate those sounds. Godlovitch makes the corresponding point that
what \Ve respect in music and what we respect in musicianship are t\Vo very
different things. As listeners, \ve can evaluate both an output ofsound as such
(a "phenomenal performance"), and a player 's skill or virtuosity (in Iight
of the diffic1Jlty 01' carrying out a specific sequence 01' actions). Recording
technology, not to mention various synthesjzers and computers, generally
leaves liS in the dark about the integrity orthe performance made, which is to
say, about the performance ski lis and creditworthiness ofthe performer. For
perhaps the first time in human history, musicianship is wrenched from the
eraft tradition. As Iisteners, \ve can only evaluate the phenomenal perform­
ance, the seulpted sound. 'o \Ve are deprived of the first thrce of Thom's six
categories 01' playful attention.
Although he stops short of condemning the devaluation and impending
loss 01' real-time musical execution , Godlovitch is less than enthused with this
prospect.'1 He wavers between nostalgia for the tradition of old-fashioned
musicianship (a "millennium 01' hard manual labor") and an quasi-mora l
coneern for the integrity ofart as a speeies ofhuman ageney. In response, we
lllight note that the cngineering and producing 01' musical recordings is also
a spccies of human agency. While standards of integrity may be rcvised or
superseded, they will not vanish.
D rawi ng on Pete r Drucker's observati ons o n technology and culture, tech­
lI ologics are alwuys aspec Ls 01" a l arg~l, co mplex systcrn. One aspect is social.
OI1l: cannn l ill ll'lld lu.:.e ;1 ncw lech ll ll!llUY ¡n ro an .:~i~ lin .l!. silllat ion wilholll
1:,1)

flhtll!alll/l llg lh~ hl llll ílll 'o llllallll ll. Illt ~ II\ I l.... ,,1 ,1 Ill'W 1\'l: hl\(\I ~lgy a lwa,,'
11l\ll l vc~ IJ¡\.' 1I:fll ga l1i/(t liol1 Orhllll1¡t n WllrJ.. pa ll el ll :--. llldud illg lim: oIf t ~IC: I
I\l Jlll''',l' SI) Ihe SUCCCSS or rcc(mkd mus ic II ICHIIS 11t;11 ralJ1 ilí<l r ~lalldarJ s tll'
11 11 1:1" Ily, dcvcl o pcd in conj u ndion with the 11111sic-m akillg tcch nol()g)' \11' Iltl.'
1".. 1 leW hUlld red years, will be superseded by new sta ndards. In a wo rld
wla:lc livc performance is the aberration, dodored recordings a re not quilc
allalogolls lo G odl ovitch 's example of the pole vaulter who has th c bendit
,,1' hackpack rocket boosters.:u The important question is whelher listcm:rs
1I1l<.lcrstand the technological mcdiation involved . Beeth oven 's Diahe!li VariCl­
lin/l.\' take about an hour to play: however , since the líner notes to Daniel
Barenboim's recent recording sliplllate that it was recorded o ver two d ays.
there is no deception as to Barenboim 's stam ina , concentration, and uniform
excellence. Recordings of " authentic" performances usually provide detailed
information about the instruments used to generate the sounds.
To his credit, Godlovitch is not concerned with the fam iliar idea of " that
peculiar and titillating risk factor that is absent when we listen to record ­
ings. "14 It is doubtful that many people attend music performances fo r an
aestheticized variant of the thrill 01' auto racing, boxing matches, and other
sports events. It is not risk but skill that is on display in musical performance.
In fact , the most virtuosic performers, those possessing manual dexteri ty.
"iro n nerves, as \Vell as . .. prodigious memories," may face the leosl risk in
live performance. 35
While seamless editing can make it impossiblc to know whether a particu ­
lar sequence of recorded sounds is a case of real-time virtuosity , Godlo vitch
does not persuade me that virtuosity is likely to disappear. First, I doubt tha!
recordings and recent electronic technology pose a threat to real-time musi­
cianship. Recordings often inspire listeners to learn an instrument; wit ness
theexplosion in the salesofelectric guitars in the 1960s. And even iftheflashy
playing of an Eddie Van Halen or a Joe Satriani turns out to be presenl o n a
particular recording only through " unsporting" production practices, thou­
sands of other guitarists will be inspired to learn to play their guitar parts in
straight performance,
Even if recordings eventually lead to a devaluation 01' real-time execution.
it is only one of several sorts of virtuosity. As Thomas Mark observes, per­
formances can feature at least two distinct forms ofvirtuosity , corresponding
to " two ways in which works may be difficult to perform." Some works
demand a high dcgree of skill in execution (Godlovitch's concern) and some,
sLlch as Beethoven's late piano sonatas, "make greater demands on él PCI­
former's llnderstanding than on the sorts ofskills most often associateu Wi tJl
virtuosity. ,,1(. Likening works of art to sta tements, Mark observes thal tO DgllC
twisters that are hard to execute are usually Ll nin te rcsting in conlen t. ' 7 111
other wo rds , only those wh o are fanatical about ClocU lion are likcly lO pay
symphon y o rchestra prices lO altend an evening's pc rfo nnunce 0 1' c1.I'isil.'
lo ngue twislers. Bu! lew m usic lo ve rs wan l merl' ~'I\\l: lIl ic lll ; in cvaluati ng a
140
l llu'He,, 1 pt.:l/lfIIJI.lI ll l', II1t1s l \11 U ~ II\ld Vll lllu~ ll y 1-11111.: 1 IÍleslllllc ir Iltl' 111llsic
1" dilfll. ull hU I IIl h\.' IWisc lI u t worlh pla ying. l1 is ¡r Iso wor th no tin g lhat onl y
:1 IJl lliled po rlillll uf' Ihc WCSICl ll ca llon is cOlJlposcd 01' works 01' virtuo­
" iI )', and lhe pOlen lia l devaluation 01' manual virtuosity does no! touch on
1hl.: res t.
hlrlherl11ore, a 11lusical work may be difficult to understand when it de­
IIlands (01' a know ing audiencc) conscientious attention to the composer's
hig h-lcvel arlistic intenlions. 3~ Prominent among these are music's emotive
,llld alfective d imensions. In composing The Sellen L([Sl IVords %u/' SaFio/'
li'Oll/ Ihe eros.\', I laydn 's high-Ievel intentions evidently included capturing
Ihe gravity , grandeur, and solemnity appropriate to a religious observation of
Ihe Crucifixion . These intentions (as well as the basic melodies and harmon­
il'S) are preserved in his piano reduction and string quartet arrangement,
also published in 1787. Here, Haydn sacrificed his original intentions about
illstrumentation and resultant timbres, no doubt to make his high-Ievel inten­
1iuns more widely accessible.39
Since skillful execution (real or faked) is a sine qua non of most recordings,
1I': l:ordings tend to emphasize interpretative virtuosity , high-lighting the ques­
tion 01' whether the music and its interpretation is compelling (or at least
wurthwhile). As such , recorded music poses a risk 01' its own, and not JU Sl in
Ih.: lrivial sense that the compact disc I purchase may lurn out to be defecti ve.
IlIlcrpretative failures oflive performance tend to be a temporary embarrass­
III.:nt, known to a few and forgotten over time. But Glenn G Ollld's disastrous
1cl:orded readin gs of several of Mozart's piano sonatas are always therc lo
Icrnind us how a superb musician can misundersland great music. 40 G ould, o f
L'\ lUrSe, is famous for taking advantage of studio technology to construct
·p.:rformances" that explore high-Ievel intention s; his 1965 read ing of lhe
!\-Minor Fugue from Book I of Bach's The We/l- Tempe/'e(,/ C/avier is actually
a composite oftwo different takes employing radically different phrase deline­
aliolls, resulting in a " montage" interpretation that Gould could not have
ITcaled in a concert performance. 4 1
Moreover, recording technology has given birth lo a new sort ofvirluosity ,
1hat of production. This is not the ideal 01' fidelity to the sound of live per­
IllnnallCe, but the sculpting of sound for musical effect , without regard to its
Il'óllization before an audience. While its central techniques were developed
1ft conjllnction with " seriolls" tape music, it has come into its own , as a
'1 1t'lIilicant rival to live performance, in popular mllsic. I have in mind Brian
Wilson's work on The Beach Boys' Pel SoU!u!.y (1966), George Martin 's work
\Vil h The Beatles on R('I'o/l'er (1966), Frank Zappa 's first four albums with
Ilrc Mothcrs 01' Invcntion, ami Pink Floyd 's work with Alan Parsons on
/I(/rl\ Side o/'Ih(' Moon (197l),1'
hna lly , s upposc we granl (¡ odlovitch's roint that recordings and electronic
l"q llip mcn l ~uc h as syn lhcsi/C fS dll ud :.¡ lislcllcr's cvalua lion, llnderm in in g lh e
or
1IlI l.'g rity rca l-t ime villlJ O'il ly IIIH 1~' ~' ClI J lIl g~ also rai sc the issue o f whethcr
\1I1
 MI IHA ANI) lP¡' II¡-4n l I) (¡\
illtcrCti l ill t IJis spcl.:ies 01' vi rllllJsity 1.:; 111 bL' cenlra l lo Ihe a ppl'ccialion 1)1"
111 LIsie. I\s Th oJ1las M a rk o bserves, lhe virluusity v I" a r cr/'ormcr Iikc 1 1~)r()wi ll
invólves él certain selr-elracemcnt; él virluOSt) does not cal! altcntion to thc
elTort dem andcd by a diHicult piece. 4 \ I low, then, does the a verage listener
know that it dcmands virtuosi ty?
In order to determine the level of difficulty posed b y él particular piece,
one might try to perform it, or study the score. B ut if one does not kn ow the
demands 01' the partiL:ular instrument, one cannot j udge the virtuosity dis­
played. 44 And this may be the sitllation more often than no1. 1, for one, know
very little about the mechanics 01' oboe p laying. Yet r very much li ke the
sOllnd of that instrument. When I listen to A ndrew Mackay's oboe solos on
Roxy Music recordings or listen to one of V ivaldi ' s oboe concerto s, I have no
cllle whether 1 am hearing a virtuoso performance or not. Does Godlovitch
\Vant me to refrain from listening to this music?
Most people must be in roughly this position for most music. Only an ex ­
ccptional few ever learn to play more than a limited number 01' instruments.
We arrive at something of a trade-off. Recording technology has introduced
me to Vivaldi's oboe concertos, Javanese gamelan playing. and other music 1
have never had the slightest opportunity to hear in live performance. Most
peop1e still face the situation described by Gurney, having only infrequent
opportunities to attend performances of even the linchpins of the Western
canon. So any technology that provides an opportunity to hear a broader
range of music (in the process ehallenging the contingencies that led to a
"Western canon") simultaneously makes it Icss likely that the average listener
will know the extent to which a particular piece 01' music demands extreme
skil1 to execute.
The compensation is that recordings enable most people to hear a wider
range 01' music, performed with greater skill, than they could through li ve
performance alone. Enrico Caruso and Arturo Toscan.ini died before J was
born , and Glenn Gould and The Beatlcs both retired from the stage when 1
\Vas a child. 1 never got the chance to see Miles Davis, Charles Mingus, 01'
Thclonious Monk in live performance, and a1l three dicd about the time 1
becamc interested in jau. Yet I listen to their recordings, as can generatioDS
of Iistcners to come. Not only can we compare many interpretations oY lhe
same \Vorks made over the course of many years , but 1'01' the first ti me
audiences can cvaluate the complete seo pe of the career of major performers.
It seems that recordings can both enhance and diminish our access to virtuos­
ity in its several species.
IV
Besides reducing the audience's dired cviucllcc of Ihe intcgrity 01" pe rl"orrn­
ance skill , somo.! wri lers slIggcsl lhal un CVCIl mNe impl)rla nt di 1l1cn ~ i on 01'
Jd"
I.I S I I' NIN(¡ 'JO M l l S11'
Illllsie is losl UII those wllo prcfer the Illedialion 01' recordings. Hecausc we
are unable lo watch the m usic being made. recordings deprive us of the
opportunity to coordinate the sounds with lhe human gcstures in which
they originate. Audi enees may lose the opportunity for playful attention to
the relation between eontent and vehic\e. Thom 's fourth mode of beholding
a perform a nce. Since this result stnikes directly at the audience's access to
the composer' s high-Ievel intentions, which 1 claimed are highlighted with
recordings, it deserves elaboration and responSe.
Prominent among high-Ievel intentions is a work 's expressivity. While not
all music is emotionaUy expressivc, a good deal of it is. Levinson observes
that " since the expressive value of a passage is parlly determ ioed by the
musical gestures that are properly heard withjn it . .. ex pressivc con tent in
music is not detachable from the means of performanee. "45 The insoueiance
of a keyboard glissa odo , for example, " derives from our imaginative grasp
01' the flicking or sweeping gesture behind (or perhaps better, embodied in)
the tonal movement itself, and our subsequent placing 01' that gesture with in
the field of expressive behavior as a whole ." Based on a series 01' similar ex­
amples, Levinson concludes that experiencc 01' musical expressi vi ty must be
grounded in authentic performance. which " requires" authentic performance
on the in tended instruments. 46 ¡\ Ithough Lev inson does Ilot emphasize tbe
point, it would appear that simply listening to recordings of such perform.
ances will not provide the audience with sufficient understanding of how tbe
sounds are "bound up witb" specific gestures.
According to this line 01' analysis, if one does not play piano, recovery 01'
the expressivity 01' Horowitz's renderings 01' Chopin's music depends on
oh.l'ening Horowitz's gestures. 47 11' one is li stening to a recording and cannot
observe Horowitz 's gestures, one would need to have observed enough piano
playing to associate appropriate gestures with the sounds emana ting from the
speakers. As noted in the last section, mo st people cannot play most musical
instruments, which suggests that the loss of live musical performances wo uld
leave most of us in very bad shape, unablc to recapture many high-lcvcl
musical intentions.
However, this argument offers as much support for watching filmed per­
formanees as it does for attending live performances. One 01' Levinson's
central examples is " Chico Marx's one-finger antics in various Marx Brothers
movies ." Movics are arguably superior to live performance. since the use 01'
judicious close-ups shows the audiencc small gestures that might be unelear
from the upper ba1cony. In Martin Scorsese's concert documentary The LaSI
Waltz (1978), there is a point during Bob Dylan 's performance when a brief
Illoment of eye contact between Dylan and Robbie Robertson signals the
reprise 01" "13aby Let Me F oll ow You Down ." 1t is unlikely that anyone in the
concert audienee o bservcd thi s exclmn ge (Th om 's second species 01' playful
altenlion ), yel o n 1¡lm such mOIl1~l1lS ~nnvey lhe interpla y between performers
q\

in an ense m ble, n:veal ing geslores lha! a rl' 110 Iess relevant lhan whal lhe
perfonners are doing with th eir ha nds and afms.
With concert films and promotional vid eos, pop ular music successfully
coordinates human gesture and musical sound for its audience . C ontrary t
the common prejudice that mu sic videos are simply a com mercia l an cillary or
a sop to audience members with limited attention spa ns, and t ha t M I'V ano
other video olltlets cheapen the musical experience, it is m o re charitabl e to
read them as a technological alternativo to wC/lchin¡; real-time performances.
In one 01' the most common vi deo formats , a story li ne mimed by actors is
intereut wit h footage of the musicians " perfo rming" the mllsic. The audience
is thus offered two visual mode ~ 01' aecess lo musical e xpressi on: there are th e
physical movements bound up with ma king the sounds, and there are high ly
stylized tableaus d es igned to capture the music's overall emotional 11avor.
(We might recall that the era of silent film was finished off by a musical , The
Jau Sin¡;er.) Many videos feature dance, another means 01' offering gestural
interpretations ofmusical activity. The recent popularity ofshows like M TV
Unplugged, with its re\atively straight filming of acoLlstic performances, sug­
gcsts that the popular audience is interested in its own species of authentic
(albeit mediated) performance, o rjust the sort that Le vinson de man ds. At the
same time, a perfOlmer's idiosyncratic gestures may just as easily delrael
from the music.
While it is questionable whether the performer's movements are consist­
ently useful in grasping the music's expressivity, this visual data is conveyed
efficiently and effectively through the mediation of film and television. Yet
to watch a filmed performance is not to participate in an audience for a
performance. Furthermore, for those who demand a visual component, it
is unclear why lip-synching (as in so many Hollywood musicals and rock
videos) will not pro vide a more complementary matching of "gesture" and
musical expression than will reproduction 01' a genuine performance. Once
again. the audience for recordings does not seem to be aesthetically worse off.
Jt is not cIear that live performance is a superior means 1'01' recovering high­
level artistic intentions.
v tion. "SI The audience does not disappear simply beca use it does not gather
The final cIass of objections to recordings involves music's social dimen sion o
Thom emphasizes tha t performance normally takes place in a specially
designed performance space where "some of the possibilities 01' e veryday life
are annulled" to provide for new opportunities, and where audience members
"experience themselves as a community, not as separated individuals."4K
Reco rdings reduce LIS to mere voyeurs. Pianist Alfred Orendel a rgues that
if one is going 10 listen 10 reco rded music, o ne sh o uld a l leasl li sten 10 li ve
recordi ngs . fo r il is wil ness 10 a ' \ li recl exchll l1 g.~ " in w hich "lbe li stcner
en co untcrs lhe co mposer togcl be r wilh [h e pcr j'on llL'l' ,In d l he res l nf' lhe
~41
1. I S'I' F N I N li In M l ll'i l f"
alldicncc il! 1111 \' pl lll':I.' u l ulle li me." A li vc n;\,;o rding can captu rc SOI1IC m ar ks
(JI' " lhe aura uf' physical prcscncl'" nf' a Pllblic lhat is not present in lhe
sludio. 1'¡
Bul one does not need a livc performance to create s uch a space 01' its
attendant sense 01' being part 01' a community engaged with the music:
discos, Jamaican "sound system" trucks, bars and pubs and pool halls with
jllkeboxes, and the British raye scene have c reated diverse public sites for
recorded music. And the aud ience can experience itself as a community even
without such spaces; witness Langdon W inner's e xperience of driving across
the United Sta tes the week The Beatles released Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearls
Club Band in 1967:
In each dty where I stopped ... the melodies wafted in from some
far-off transistor radio 01' portable hi-fi . . .. For a brief while the
irreparably fragmented consciousness 01' the West was reunited, at
least in the minds of the young.... While it is no doubt tIlle that 1
have little in common with the gas station attenda nt in C heyenne,
Wyoming, \Ve were able to come together to talk about the mea ning
ofA Doy Inlhe Li/e during those few moments in which the oil in my
VW was being changed .50
In recent years, the boom in personal computers and Internet access
has resulted in an explosion in the experience described by Winner. The talk
is now in virtual space, whe re hundreds of Internet sites are devoted to the
discussion 01' music; most concentrate on popular music, but there are active
exchanges on classieal music, bluegrass, and "new music. " Interaction between
audience members is no longer concentrated around the time and place of
performances, but then why should our critical discourse be limited to our
initial thoughts?
In short , the social formation typical of li, e performance gives way to a
different social formation when audiences favor recorded music over live
performance. Recordings do not, as M ilton Babbitt once suppo sed, a llo\V
composcrs and other musicians to escape from audiences with a " possi bility
of complete elimination 01' lhe public and social aspeets of music composi­
together in one place at regular interval s. The question is why , apart I'rom
tradition and habit, live performance is a superior means 01' structuring
Illusic's presentation. C oncerts may provide a more entertaining evening out
lhan a trip to the mall to buy a compact disc, but recommendillg live per­
formance on sllch gr~) UIH.JS rllllS the risk 01' making the music ancillary to the
social evenL To!'elfll Llsik lo lili.:':-; I ieh pagea llt.
B rcndd'~ case t'or live Il ILJS I\,' dm''o li tll a rpea r lo he grou ou eJ in the value o f
a disl inc l pcr t'onll a 11 ce s p :¡ c.:~' ,1111 1 plnyl¡ il ;llI c nl io n ll) t he rest o r the audi ellce.
lle lllti ll1 t1telv cmJors\,;s l'1i11 11 ' 1' " , ' 11 " ni ;ll ldic lIC\: an u pc rforlllillg arlist
Id
 1\1HlllA "NI! n :(' IINI, i Iln \
(Ii SIl'nCr, pnr\lI'lUCr, an u othl'l' a uu it.:!ll'C IIIC lll lwt <, ' l tlO!ll~ place at OIlC tillle")
1'01 c lll'ouragi ng the "' hc ightcn cu inlc.: n:>ity 0 1' a IwJ'\o rnwm:e , in tbe inerense in
the playc r's vision, cour<J gc und absorpti on ." ) ' Al bcst. this is a hit or rniss
resull. Resides, this is to arguc that the mediation 01' rceordi ng makes thc
world nI' the perfonner , not the world 01' lhe listener. aesth etica lly poo re r.
Whilc some musieians nwy have trouble performing at thei r best undel'
stlldio con ditions, 1 have been contrasting recordi_ugs and Ii ve performanccs
generall y, no t with respect lo specil1c performers.
What fllrther vallle 01' compn:sence remains to enrich the listener'? B renu el
Illa y have it backwards; t he aura of a Iive performance m ay b e less importan l
as a Sti111111us to the perfonn er th an to the audience. There is, 1 grant, an undeni­
able pleasllre in being in the presence of so meone displaying great talent.
ami lhen there is the further tb rill that comes from being in the presence of
a cc1ebrity with charism a. As :illch, there m ay be as much to be gained fro m
meeting a singer and coll ect ing an autograph as froll1 attending a perform­
am:e. But what more does the artist's aura ofphysical presence contribll te lo
the musical experience'? I Fcompresence contributes nothing on that count, o r,
as 1 have been urging, onl y contributes in ways that can be replicated or
supplanted by technologica l substitutes, the attraction of performance m ay
have little to do with li steni ngto t he music.5'
My final point then, is that our musical lives are embcdded in a host o f
other social practices. TlIrning to popular music, I suspect that Elvis Presley
fans derive a stronger sense ol' his aura from a visit to his home, Gracelan d.
than from a similar period 01' time spent with his live recordings_ But T do
not believe that the aura found in a pilgrimage to the kitchen where El vi~
ate bacon sandwiches and tomato slices with brown gravy is useful in appre­
ciating " Jailhouse Rock " or "Suspicious MinJs. " On the evidence 01' live
recordings like A loha from JJawaii (1973), attendance at one of his live pe r­
formances during his last five or six years might not be useful in that regard .
either.
Like the popular appeal 01' Graceland, the attractions 01' live performance
may have far more to do with " fandom" and social bondin g than with lhe
quality of our aesthetic experiences. 54 While it is therefore unlikel y thal
recorJed music will obliterate live music, it is not clear that life is aesthetica ll y
poorer for those choosing technol ogieal substitutes_ In isolating the m u:;i~
from these aspects 01' performance, recordings can enhance the expe rience 01'
music. On this score 1 ha ve Iittle to add to points made years ago by A aro n
55
Copland, Glenn Gould, and Milton Babbitt.
1 have not claimed that recordings are , 011 balance, a superior mode of
access to m usie. But I have asked why others rega.ro live perfo rma nce as
superior. and h ave iJentified sorne coun ter-bal andn g merits and para lld
expe riences fu rnished by kchnological mcdia tioll. Pcrhaps we are best ol T
tak ing aJvantagc 01' ho[h. b ut it is 1css lhall ~ Icar Ihat the p ro lirera li~m nI'
n:¡;o n.lcu m us il,; ¡¡;¡¡VCS tll L' Wt,r1J ¡lcslhct iL'al lv PO(lH.'t. ' "
1·\1;
I S I l' N 1N ( ; 1 1) M 1I S I ' ,
Nuks
Kallll':':lI Marie Iliggins, TI/(' MU.l ie lIt ()I/r Uv('\' (Temple Univnsily Press, 1(91),
p_ 150. A sirnilar point is llladc hy Stephen Davies in 'Transeription, A uthentieity,
and Pcrforlllan.:c," Tite Brilish JIIUl'I1ul o(AesllzelÍc.l' 28 (1988): 220.
2 Palll Thom , For (l11 Audience Cf empk LJ niversity Press, 19(3), p_ 172_ It seems not
to have occurred to 1'h o m tha t the wo rld we Iive in is fast beeoming sueh a world.
1 Th omas C. M:J rk. " P hilosophy 01' Piano Playing: Re flecti ons on the Concept
01' Perfo rmance." Philosophy (I/ld PhellO/I7l'llo logical Res('arch 41 (198 1): 302_ On
Ma rk's acco llnt of performance, playback of a reeord ing of a Chopin polonaise is
not a performance 01' the wo rk ,
4 Stan G od lo vi t.:h , " Music- Wh nt to Do Abollt It," The ./OIl/'/wl 01 AeSlhelie
EduCUlioll 26 (1992): 13_
5 Francis Sparshott, "Aesthetics of M usi.:: Limits and Grounds, " in Philip Alperson ,
ed_ , W/wl Is Music' An Il1lrodllc/ion / 0 Ihe Philosophy of' A1/1sie (N ew York :
Haven, 1987: 2nd ed., Penn sy lvania State LJn ive rsity Press, 1(94). p_ 89. See also
Thom. For UI1 Audief1(:e, pp. 57- 59_
6 In agreement with Arnold Berleant and against Paul Thom , Ido not regard it as a
perfonnance ir the only persons hearing the music are those performing and
otherwise in vo lved in staging it : ir four friends ga th er to playa string quart.:t
together, music is playcd but there is no performance. See Arnold Berlean!, The
Aes/helie Fie/d (Springficld , 1L: Charles C. Th omas, 1(70) - Thom pro poses that
cases like John Cage's 4~13". in whieh no specífic sounds must be exeeuted by
performers. are not performances, The y are more like the festi vals advocated by
J ean-Jaequcs Rou sseau_ See Thom . Fol' An A/ldience, pp_ 69-72_
7 Stan Godlovitch , "The Integrity of Musical Performa nce," The ./ou/'I1(J1 o/ Ae.\'­
Ihelics IIml AI'I Crilicism 51 (1993): 576_
8 Philip Alperson, "On Musicallmprovisation ," TIte JOlll'l1l11 o(Aeslheti(:s a/1d Arl
Cr;lidsl1I 43 (1984): 20,
9 As Nicholas WolterstorfT observes, one performs a musical composition only ,i f
one's handling 01' an instru ment is guided by a "relatively large amount ofjeedc
hack" from the acoustic properties ofthe sounds produc.cd, leadin g to subseqllcnt
"adjustm ents" in handling the in st rumenL WolterstorfT. Works IIlld Worlds o/Ar!
(Oxford: C larendon Press, 1980). pp. 8() -~ 81, So, adjusting the treble on the stereo
while listening to a Beethoven symphony does not make o ne a .:o-performcr, but a
DJ who '\cratches" a complex rhythm hreak on twin turntablcs behind a rap
vocalist is performing ,
1() Deni s Dutton, "Artistic C rimes: The Prohlem of Forgery in the Arts," The Brilish
Joul'I1ul o/ AeSlhelics 19 (1979): 308_
11 Linda Dusman , "U nh.:ard-Of: l'vIusic as Pcrforrnan.:e and the Rccepti oll of the
Ncw," Pa,lpcclil'es oINcH' Mus;c 32 (1994): I3L A variation ,is defended in J o
12l1en Jacohs, " Ident ifying l'vlusical Works of Art. " The .10/11'1101o/Aesthetic Edu­
('({!iO/l 24 ( 1990): 75 - 85_
12 For eX3111ple, see the reply to Jacobs in Stephen Davies: "' 1 have finished toda y
another new concer10 .. _'," The Joumal oIAesl/¡elic Educa/ion 25 (1991): 139
14L
1.\ For cxample . Nelson Goodl1lan . I ,a/lguages o/A/'l (1 ndianapolis: H ackett Publi sh­
ing, I (n(,) ; W illialll W(: hsler, "A Thl:ory 01' the Compositio nal Work 01' Music,"
71/1' JOllrl/a/ of A l'slh, '1/r 'S(I/ld . / r! ( '/' ili6\'1I1 .B (1 (74): 59- 66; N icho las W olterstorff,
Works (/lId Wflrld\ o/ ·1,,/ .l lId K i ll ~" i l( 'Y Pli t;c, " W hal Is a Pie.:e of Mu sic?" 'fhe
/Jril;sh .Im lll /r¡/ "( t /n l/lI'l i( \ ' \ ll lIti \) 1 11 '\ \5.
1,1 JCITll ld Lcvin son , " WI ,:lI ,1 M il ,j ll,1I \\10)11, h ," 'fI1" ./01/1'1111/ 01 /'/¡;Io sophv 77
(IC)XO): r, 2lL K": lld :ill 1 W di"" ~; I \d l ' ,,,,,1 ti,.. 1'1 ,,,I,,t:[s "lid P;-p.,;csscs ()f Á rt,"
11\
 1\11 111" "NI' 1 I~I-;'>II :I'I II ~II
ill 1'/11' ( '0 1/('1'(11 ,,¡- Sll'le '. ed . Ik 1"1.; 1 I ;tll j! ( l ' llll,dl l l ll\l'-'I ~ ll y PI 'l'SS. 11)1'{7 ) PI'. 12
10.1: ¡¡ IIU W allol1 . " rhe I' I"I.:sel1l¡¡liol1 ¡¡mi rJ(ll lr¡¡y;lI 01 S"Ulld PH tlerl' ~ ." i llllll/ll'I/I
Agellcy: LOllg//ogc. I)//Iyal/(I Vall/e , etls. J. I)¡~II¡;Y J . Mor¡¡wsik. aud C. C. W .
T ay lor (Stanford LJniver$ity Pre~s . 1988).
15 W alton , "Style and the Produds and Processes in A rl. " p. 84; and l.évillsoll .
"Authentic Performanee and Performanee M cans," in M us;c, Arl. & M('lap{¡Y.I' i('.I'
(CorneIl University Press. 1990), pp. 393 - 408. Levinsoll is rc~pondillg to Sle phell
Davies. "Authenticity in Musical Performance," The Brit ish ]ollrl7(/1 o/Ae.l'IIIt'I;C.\·
27 (1987): )9·-50.
16 Stan Godlovilch, " Musie- W hat to Do About It" ; see a lso "The Integrity 01'
M usical Performance," Tite Jou/'IUJI o/Aesl{¡eli('s (1/1(1 /lrt Crilic;s/'/1 51 (1993): Sr:.
587; PaLiI Thom , "Young's C ritique 01' Authenticity in M usi cal Pe rfo rmance, " Tite
BrilisJ¡ .fol//'I1al 01' Ae~'llleI ics 30 (1990): 273-276. Godlovitch is responding lo
William W ebster: Thom to J ames O. Young.
17 See Arno ld Berleant, An (ll/rI Engagemel1l (Temple University Press, 1991), p. 3l1.
and Evan Eisenberg, T{¡e RC'co rding Angel: MU.I'ic in OLlr Time (New York: MeGraw­
HilL 1987), chapo 8. In the era of shellac 78s, the time limit inherent in the lech­
nology demanded that longer 1V0rks be recorded in scgmenls of a bout three and él
half to four élnd a hall' minutes, so the practice of rccording segme nts (rather th a n
whole works) is not a new development .
18 Linda Ferguson, ';Tapc Composition: An Art Form in Search of Its M eta­
physics," The Jou/'Il(/I o/Ae.l'lhelic.\· (fnd A/'I C/'ilicisl11 42 (1983): 19. Sec also Peggy
Phe!an. UIlII1(/rknl: The Polilics oI Petjó/'l1!(f/u:e (N ew Y ork: Ro utledge, 1993),
p. 146.
19 Ferguson, "'rape Composition ," pp. 2]. 25.
20 Wolterstorff seems to have bcen the first to note that heing (1 pelfo/'mall((, may he
normative for snund-sequence occurrences to count as instantialions of certain
musical works (e.g. , Becthoven 's op . 111), whereas il is not normative for tape
compositions. Sce Wolterstorff, Wo/'ks a/1(1 Wo/'Ids olAr/, p. 84n.
21 Edmund Gurney, T{¡e Power o/ SOl/lid (1880; reprint, with an introductory essay
by Edward T. Cone, New York : Rasic Books , 1966), p. 290.
22 Ibid ., p. 296.
23 Ibid .. pp. 298 ami 302.
24 Ibid. , p. 302. One eould make much of the fact that Gurney ignores common
instruments th a t contradict this claim, likc the barre! organ.
25 Slan Godlovitch. "A uthentic Performance," T{¡e MOllisl 7 1 (1988): 258 - 277.
26 Following Thomas C. Mark ' s analysis 01' musical performance, a rccording that
aUlhoritatively articulates " how things musically are" could itself wunt as a
performance, albeit by unconvel1tional means. See Mark. " Philosophy of Pia.no
Playing." pp. 305-313.
27 As in the casc of mally of Glenn Gould's recordings. " lhcre can be good pcrform­
ances that. though somewhat incorrect, achieve certain worthwhile ends or results
from somc defensiblc listener pcrspective, without complctcly undennining the
ch<lracter of the music involvcd" (Levinson, "Evaluating Musical Performances."
p. 384). Sce also Dulton , ';Artistic Crimcs."
28 Sparshott , " Aesthetics of Music," p. 89. See arso Thom , Fo/' (/n AI.llliel1('e, cha ps. ')
and 8. Given the scope of this essay, I conccntratc on thc audiencc's rocus on lhe
music as an elct of performance , and nol on the effect Ihe audiencc has 0 11 the
performcr.
29 T hom . Fo/' (In Aurliellre, p . 205 .
(New York : FalTa r Slra ub G iroux. 11)1) 1), p p. 203- 204. Sparshott sirnila rl y speaks
3D G oldlo vitch, " T he Integrit y or M usical Pa rO rm<llllx:' pp. 579 586.
orlhe " k Il ow lcdgc u f compn:scl1cc w1th lhe nrtisl ." in "A(;sthelics of M lIsic: Limits
31 G odlnvitch , " Music W hat to Do about 11 ." p. 1:1
ami GrOl.llllb," p. 1I9.
,<IX
1 1'/ MII:'f1l
\2 l'dl'1 1 "1 lid. 1'1 11'I·/III/1logl'. Ml/IllIg I '1/1t'11I (/1/(1 S OI 'Í<'lI ' ( Ncw York: !Ia rpe r &
R~,w. In o) dl.ll' . ' . (ilel1l1 (iollld was kccn ly awarc orlhc moral conscqucncc~ (ll'
hringill g III!\\ to.:c hllologics into arl. See Geoffrcy Payza nt. (;lelll1 GOl/Id: Music a/l(i
Mil/ti (T oro nto: Van No ~ trand Reinhold , 1978), pp. 120- 121.
33 Godlovitch, " Music-What lO Do A bout 11," p . 11 . A doser and potentially morc
disturbiog case is Luciano Pavarotti's having resorted to lip-synching voc<tl parts
during at least one eoncel'!. Perhaps Godlovitch docs not mean that it is lInfair to
··c heat" in this way, but that it is wrong to ch<lnge the general rules 01' the game.
34 M o rris Grossman , "Pe rformance and Obligation, " in A lperso n, ed. , Whal is
Music." , p. 277.
35 Ibid.
36 Mark , "Philosophy of Piano Pla ying," p . 322. Exploring the conceptual re lation
between a lVork and its pcrfolmance, Mark proposes that performing a wo rk is
analogous to simultaneo usly quoting and asserting a piece of speech; some pieces
ofspeech are difficult to pronoullce. while others are difficult to grasp. A performer
may face parallel obstades in performi ng a musica l work.
37 Mark , " Ph ilo sophy of Piano Playing. " pp. 322- 323.
38 Randall R. D ipert , "The Composer's Intentions: A11 Examimltion of lheir Relev­
ance for Performance," The MI/sical QU(lrlerly 66 ( 1980): 207·-208.
39 As Stephe n Davies emphasizes throughout "Transcription. Authent icity and Per­
fonllance," a good trnnscription preserves the " musical cnnten t" of a \York in a
different musicalmediu m, but it is wrong to think orit as a translation. Rcturnin g
to Mar k 's comparison 01' performance to quoting while asserting, a transcriplion
might be likeried to an intentional paraphrase whik asserting.
40 Sec O tto Friedrich. (;1('11/1 Gould: A Lije alld Varialio/l.\· (Ne\\' York: Vintage
Books, 1989), pp . 141 - 147.
41 See Payzant, Clenll GOl/f¡{, pp. 38- 39.
42 Evan Eisenberg captures thi s dimension of reeordings lindel' his notiDI1 (JI' an arl 01'
phonography: see T{¡ e RC'('ording Al/gel, chapo 8.
43 Thomas C. Mark , "On Works orVirtuosity." Tite .10/11'11111 o/' PltillJsopl/l' 77 (1 ()~()):
32.
44 As Mark puts il, pleasure laken in virtuosic piano playil1g " dcpends primarily DI1
knowing something about the exigencies of piano playing" ("Philosophy or Piano
Playing," p. 323). Sinee virt ually cvcryone ha s expcriencc with singing, vocal
virtuosity rna y be ti special case.
45 Levinson , Music, Arl, & Melaphysics , pp. 398- 399. Collingwood's position , that
the audience's prese nce ma kes it a collaborator in the creation of art, can be
understood as a variant of Lcvi nso n 's. Sce R. G. Collingwood , Tite Prillciples oJ'
Arl (Oxford: Oxford lJniversil Y Press, 1938). chapo XIV .
46 Levinson , Ml.Isi(', A rl , & Metaphy si('s, p. 402. Levin son\ argument offers support
to Godlo vitch 's objeetions to rin g modlllators and o lher lechnolog ies that un­
couple spccific sounds from traditiomt'l pcrformance skills. See , e.g., Godlovitch ,
"The Integri t y of M usical Pe rformance," pp. 581 ·-586.
47 See E rvin Laszlo, "Aesthetics of Live Musical Perforll1ance," TI/(' B/'ilish ,fIJ//I'Iwl
o/Aesl/¡elic,l' 7 (1967): 26 1- 273. Laszlo explicitly arglles that " the uniqlle combinil­
tion of auditory ami viwal clement," is our main reason " for atlending live con­
eert [)crformances, cvcn in this age ofhigh fidelity electronic sound reproductioll."
4X T hom, !-iJl' (fn /Jlldiel1 ce, pp. 175 176.
4() Alrred Bre ndcl. M usie So wuled OUI: 1:.I'.\'a)'.I'. L('cfllre.l'. 111 1e/'vie1l'.\'. Afiei'/llUughls
.\ )1
 MWU" "NI' t'I!I' lI Nll f Il,-n
50 L allgdo ll W inn \!I', "I II\! SI I :¡ II /.t~ I)cil lh ,,1 Rlld II lld !<" II .. in N(I<"I, IlIld Nol! Jl'iff
S tand. ed. Grcil M arcus ( B(lst,lI ¡: H e a ";( 1I 1 I'rc\ l>, 1% 1.). p..~2
51 Milton Babbitt, "WIl.o Cares Ir Yo u Lis te n'¡" I/Ig/J Ficfefi/y (I:cbruary. 1 1)5 ~):.lH 86
40,126- 127. Bab bitt uses the title "The COlllpC'l ~e r as Specialist" in all reprilll mg~ .
52 Brendel, p. 204.
53 For an extended case study examining this idea, see Joseph Horow itz. U l1ders/(//uf­ N EG OTIATING PRES E NCE
ing Toscanini (University of M innesota Press, 1987).
54 By "aesthetie cxperience" 1 mean some thi ng quite traditional: the rewil rd ~ 01'
grasping a musical work under a particular in terpretation as it Llnfol d s in a series
Performance and new technologies
01' sounds to which one listens attentivel y.
55 For example. Aaron Copland, "The World ofthe Phollograph," in Our N elV M usic:
Leading CO/llf!osers in Lurope olld Arnerica (N ew Yo rk : M cG raw- H ill, 1941). Andrew M urphie
p p. 243-259.
56 My thanks to the anonymous reader for this journal , whose com ments led to ma ny
revisiollS, and to Stan Godlovitch, Lee Brown, and Peter Kiv y for conve rsatiom
that encou raged me to think aboLlt performance issues. Sourcc: I'hilip Hayward (ed. ). eu//uri'. Techl1%gy &. Crea /ivily . I.ondon : John I.ibbey. c.1990.
pp. 209 226.

The historical origins of performance, conceived of as a form and activity

distinct from (narrative) theatre, are imprecise. But while its progenitors
inc1ude various popular cultural, 'hi gh' cultural and avant ga rde practices , it
eame to particular prominence in its o wn right during the Sixties and Seven­
tieso ltflourished during this period on the strength ofits presence. It wa s live ,
separate from the re-productions of film and the static arts on one hand and
from the imaginary narratives oftheatre on the other. But suddenly, as artists
and performers embraced advances in video production. computer sampling
and the mechanics and e1ectronics of high technology in general, the nature
01' performance itself was question ed. There was now confusion between
c1aims that performance was both 'dead" and active as never before. 2 Whether
you agree with one side or another seems to depend on how you view tech­
nology in relation to the live qualities of performance. For example, in an
interview published in 1984, performance artist Terry Fox said:

Ilhil7k lhallhe original impulsejór perjórmonce was vital, and il'.I' stifl
it'.\' really importanl . .. But il is so haslardized . .. lhal nOlI' per­
.fimnance has hecome a cliché eFery performance exael!y lhe same:
you knoll' whal lo expecl. you k/1oH' il 's going lo he s!ides, and pre­
rcw rded lape and so 0/1 ... You can ol1!y do lhings \Vilhin lhe limils o/
Ihe led1l1ology (//1(1 . .. lo lI1e Ilw(.I· a lerrih!e reslrictiol7.'

For Fox , Icchnology ¡ r\tclli:n: ~ wil ll lile t'reedoms ofreal time, space and bodies
in perromw l1 cc. On Ihe ~)J h \..· 1 halld . 1 all !'ic Andcrson completely em braces
tedlll o lo¡,.'Y as a ~0 111 r)(l1ll'J1L 0 1' 1 ~!, ¡J lil'\", ~~VC I1 ir a lly sense o r real time. space
am I b()d ic~ is d c~lmyed 111 t lt L 111111.1::", 1\, t,h c cmp hasises:

Vio 1:': 1
 MI ' DI/\. ANU I ' I I ( II NO ll Hi\
... /ec/1I1ology afk('/;ng p eIl/Jle ',I' lil'('s 1111 (/ doily h((si.\', IlIi.l' i,l' 1I1u1l1/1l'
\\lo/"k is real/y ('('nlred 0/1, Ho ll' dO!!,I' (/ !l('r.I'(}1I really ('ope in (/1/ ('/('1'­
lrollic world. You ll/m 0/1 a TV ellle! it docsn'l work, {l11l1 111111'.1',1' you' r(,
(Jlechnician 01' (1/1 eng;neer y ou p l'o bah!y cafl 'lfix il , Yo u ' re living in a
Imrld ,IUII 's ex/reme/y alienaling4
In the same interview she also says ' 1love machines' , The wo rld oftechnology
may be alienating but for Andcrson, it is the world, Other perfo rmance anists
have taken this further. Stelarc for instance, suspended by steel hooks through
hís skin or work ing \Vith his hi gh-tech ' third hand ', welüomes techn ology as a
messi an ic force - the final sllpplement to humank ind 's ailing evolution 5
New commllnications and information technologies have radically atTected
various aspects of our perception of self, society and the universe. Technol ogy
has, for exam ple, broughl about signirlcanl changes in th e way we percei ve
our own bodics, mapping these out \Vith its own peculiar distance and detail.
Through various processes of video-photography, scanning and imaging, we
are increasingly coming to kn ow our bodies as ' foreign objects' viewed from
oUl.\'ide. Performance work has recognised and responded to this in variou s
ways. In performances such as Elizabeth Chitty's D el110 Model (1978) for
example, where the performer scrutinizes her body in detail using video , this
has been expressed in terms of anxiety. At the other extreme, works such as
Ste1arc's film of the interior of hi s body or his ' acousticallandscapes' of the
sa me, have be en marked by their ecstacy.
In another response, the body in many performances has become not so
mueh anxious, 01' ecstatic, as ahsen/ - particularly as the 'site of truth ' it
became in much Sixties and Scventies performance. Over the last five years
this has given performance work a particular focus. as it attempts to forget
a body of knowledge based on the body-as-truth syndrome. A t the same
time , living as we do in the hi gh speed information dispersal world of Jean
Baudrillard's more general 'ecstasy of communication', it has also tried
resllscitating a body which can resist the demon of information technology, a
demon which some would say \Vollld turn the body into nothing more than
another station in the mesh of communicative networks . 1n the early Eighties,
Josctte Féral perceived and advocated technology as a set of extra alienatioo
effects which could relllrn to the body the kind of presence that theatre had
's tolen ' from it:
P erf;mnonce rejals all illusion , in par/icular /!Jea/rical illusion ori­
ginating in l!Je repres.I'ion o( /he hoC!y's 'has('/" ' e1emen/s. , . To /!Ji.\'
end ;llurl1.\' lo /he \'arious l11!!clia l el eph% l enses, slill ('(l111eraS, 1I100'i e
cameras, video .I'creen.\', telel'ision which are "/ere like SI) !no n.!'
microscopes 10 magl1 if.i ' fh e iI~fillitely .l'111a/l andJiJ('lIs Ihe Uud;clI('e ',I'
al/en lion 011 Ihe lill1il('(1 phY.I'icu¡ SP((('(',\' mili/m,.;,/¡ /w'\'('({ IJII I hl' 111('
Iwr!(¡rfll('r ',\' d('si/'(' . 1111' h/l(~1' is Iwl ('111 11/1 in 01'(11'1 l o lIt'grl lL' i l . hlll
1'1"
NI ( j 1) I I ¡\ I I N (i l ' I~ I! '" L N ( '1
;/1
IIrda lo /J/'IIIg il III/c/.; //1 /if;' ¡,I ('udl oi ils par/s, lt 'lúeh hm'e, ea('/¡
i/l(I('!JL'l1denl 11'11011'. l'/¡is i.\' f)errida ',1' dilferance made
/1//( '. /J('C OI/ It' (11/
pan'{J1 ib/l'. lo
These comments are premised on the supposedly innate ability oftechnology
lo 'alienate' when lIsed in perform ance work. This l110y have been the case in
the late Seventies and early Eighties, but severa] factors have made technical
alienation effects strangely fami lia r now. In some ways, what began al the
start of the Eighties as an attempt 10 use technology to re-gain the bod v in
performance has ended with lhe body 's el ision.
Total theatre and beyood
Whalever their effect on performance work, both computer and information
technoJogies have otTered theatre the realisation of one particular trajectory.
They have created the best conditions yet for a Wagnerian ' total theatre ' .
Even the computerisation of lighting has, for instance, greatly increased the
parameters of what can be done to enhance the fullness 01' the theatrical
illusion. Nothing need now be left to chanceo Most theatre companies have
experimented \Vith the latest video and computer technology in order to
enhancc the total effect 01' the theatrical illusion and ils subseq uent transform­
ative power. Now, in opera, computer guided slide projections even allow
opera-goers to read translations of the libretto , projected aboye the stage (1.1'
il i.\' .I'ung.
SlIch uses of contemporary advanced technologies are of course, com­
pletely opposite to lhe use of technology as an ali enation effect in early
performances. 1t is as if there is an essential dichotomy in its use in theatre
you either use the extra clements and speed gained in a ' Wagnerian ' wa y, such
as in the recent work 01' Robert Wilson; 01' otherwise in a Brechtian way, such
as in the work 01' Richard Foreman. However, with the exception ofits use in
concealed contexts such as computerised li ghting changes, the use of high
tcchnology invariably tends to disrupt the narrative accumulation 01' fixed
symbols and make 'theatre', as such. increa singly impossible. Many theatrical
perfonnances which strive for total theatre by using video , laser a nd com­
puters to enhance a fixed theatrical narra ti ve in symbolic structuring, cannot
he1p but start to look a little awkward. Wilson in particular has undcrstood
this and largely abandons narrativity in his more recent work.
There is howevcr another approach outside the dichotomy between Brcchtian
alicnation or Wagnerian total theatre, both ofwhich foreground the separa­
lion 01' elements as a theatrical mcans of reaching 'truth '. This approach
is that which regards the performan ce 01' thc new tech nologies Ihem.l'elves as
events simply existing amo ng (lther cvenls. In John Cage's terms, they pro­
duce 'jusI a no lhc r Iloise in Ihc :- iklll.;c·. rh i~ i'i good rOl' perrormance in tha1,
whik il docs lIul val (l r i~c 01' d ~'Il1\II,isc II'dl llOl ol!Y, il hroauen:; the scopc 01'
\ '1 ' (
 1\.\1' 1I I ¡\ ANn -n r¡-' ¡¡ 'N",H nn\
wha t can be ('(JIIsitl('n'tI p e r fllllllallCl:, In ' 1lI11l' ~I' II :;l·S . 11Il: r/e //¡ro/1 illJ: lit" tllt'
boJ y anJ J irect human aLt ivily in pcrlút lll a lll:c hy Ihe IIse o r tedl nology (,;;10
lcad to performan ce conducted oulsidc 01' cithcr individuulislic (JI' h UllIa nisl
altitudes - performancc which is not just an altempt to sllppkl1ll:nl lhe
human wi11 and harness technology to humanity's further ' progress'.
John Cage himsclf has continued to use new technologies without neL'C$­
sarily foregrounding or valo rising them more than any other elemcnt in lhe
' silence' . In this sense technology ceases having to ' mean ' él\lytru ng, or cven
be the sainted deliverer of meaning, and is instead simply one component in
the presentation of lhe present. 1n his recent Europeras I & 2 ror exam ple,
Cage has used technology so that
... .\pec/(f/or.l' hehold . .. on app(/rel1/ly ral1do/11 processiol1 o/ s/agl!
elemenls orc!ered h)' a computer program ( ("olled '/e hecau.I'l! i/ simu­
la/es /he l Ching's divina/o/)' me/hod). Ac/or,I', /eehnióol1s, and musí­
cians ore 'conduelec!' hy i/1is program, whieh ( l/es pl!ople via video
moni/ors se/ inFonl (~//he stage . .. The only lrl/e alea/or)'Iea/ure ís
lC".\" impera/ive, wllieh e/lsures /h e order oI even/s IVill he d¡fferen/
ereryerening. Europera 's progral11 playjúl/y poin/s /hís up by pro vid­
ing lwelre possihle syl70psesjár lhe opera. 7
Thi s may seem littl e different to Cage's own direct manipulation 01' the 1
C hing but can be seen to be even less anthropocentrie. A computer program
becomes an element 01' organsation in the performance without becoming t he
dominant element ... the structural centre of the performance (IC 'S) is literally
situated on the margino
Such a use of technology in performance work has di stinctly different
qualities and associations from Jameson's notion of pastiche, in which a sen se
of history , place or unity is 10s1. In Cage 's \York , technology is not so much
constructing a substitutive culture (or in Jameson 's famous example, a hotel
foyer) but playfu11y re-ordering culture to make its determinations more
obvioLlS. In fact , Mead Hunter c\aims that Cage's Europeras / & JJ is ' fina11 y
subversive in that it returns culture to peop\c, as their property to slice up a t
will. Far from ending opera, C age has given us a heightened awareness of its
historicity'.s
When performance treats tcchnology as another component , anoth er no ise
in the silence, much of the debate about technology 's significance becomes
insignificant. 1ndeed what Cage 's \York shows is that it may only be in lhe
context of play/performance that techno'logies divorced from lheif usual
cultural efficiencies can be secn more c1early for what they are. for the \Vay in
which they structure experience. T his is even more true of information amI
media technology than it c vcr was or
litera tu re or evcl1 buJ y-baseu perform­
ance; since lhe former ha ve a high speeJ n I" d ispersal an u a co nscq ucn l
cphcmerali ty as übjcCl s \)r 1110llUlllcn ls. C agc';-, ~; I;l l cIIIC ll ls a hf) ut h is wurk
1'í4
N I ' I; O II A ' l l N l j j1 RI ': SJ 'Nt' l '
have: abo ~k l l l< .l lI s llaled an ;'1\Va rCI1CSS nI" pnssible I"nrms nI' posllllodern con­
sciulIsncss wh ic h illvolvc 'a spacializing orlhe cognitive facultics ' .') As David
Illlgheli has cmphasiscd, Cage's approach pcrceives the individual as making
'scllse out 01' the multiplicity of messages, creating a private logic and n ar­
rative: being the perceplual and active centre 01' his/her world ; selecting and
combining by choice and instinct; and being open to a11 possible inputs ... 10
The beauty ofthis Cagea n approach is that it aba nd ons both the need to con­
trol the machine and/or feel overwhelm ed by it. T he dilemma his approach
lea ves bchind is essentia11y one of 'protocols versus vanq uishment'. It is the
Illasculine nature of this scenario, with both positions repres0nting displace­
ments of ego uncertainty into social control , which has informed much 01' the
use of new technologies in performance. II
Technoscapes and the global sample
Over the last decade there has been an inereasing tendency fo r performance
artisls to appear at fashionable metropolilan dance parties. During the same
period , the Barcelona lroupe La Fura DeIs Baus have toured the globe with
their mixture of savage theatrical nihilism and macho meat-cater regression .
Both forms are environmental theatres on a large scale. Performance at such
events is immediately assimilated beca use the environment itself is une of the
perfonners. Yet in the context 01' the dance parties (and increasingly there are
similar audiences for both), La Fura seems increasingl y archaic and carica­
tured in its physical and macho intimidation.
At dance parties, the presence 01' techn ology controlling the performance
guarantees its presentability as fashion . E veryone can participate in ils re­
peatable culture beca use the technol ogy ultimately stands outside a ny one
person or group of people. Jt is a mathematical cathexis with a guarantee of
safe patterning. Nothing is rea11y 'happening', there is onl y the repetitio n
of that which is the latest in fashion and the least localised. 12 The samples for
this come from somewhere else. At the dance party a11 is postponement, a
continual deferral 01' everything that has not been samp1cd ¡n to that space
and time. Even the conflicting performances of lhe perform a nce artists who
respond to the newspaper advertisements and promotional handbi11s are just
another piece of the décor - unlike La Fura's demand to be dealt with as /he
performers. Performance itself, its re1ation to bodies and their motion , has
become a commodity.
r have d\Velt on dance parties beca use they are emblematic ofperformance
at prescnt. They represent one ofthe prime sites at which desire is filtered and
a11 other fonns 01' performancc seem increasingly aligned to the global grid
which lhey rc p rcsllnL In alt cll lpl ing to l'haracterise them , Andrzej Wirlh 's
rcmarks 0 11 Victor 1'III I1 CI ;I n: <: ingu l:ll ly ap[wsitc, 'a new transcul tural com­
IIHlIl ica Iive !>y nlhcsis . , i l1d n~d 1\ HIt.. pl ui:l" hlll 'wit hou t él visi ble con lribu­
lio n I\} 1!I \lbal cull ura l llluh- l'of ¡IIIIIII I¡' 1 I
1\
 /VI l~ nll\ -/n"f.1 I nT7~
Th ~ p roli fe ralillll uf various disi\)fI :-' l)1' \,; 1111111 al hUllnda rics in divcrsc url
fo rms partly rcsul1s from infonnation ledlllol ogics lhem::¡cl vI!S. anu ¡... par 11 y Ihe
result, in the arts at least, 01' the way in which the advances in slIch informa ­
tion technologics have been discussed. When various European theo risls dCC!;H\,;
lhal lhe new lcchnologies have led to McLuhan 's global villagc. Balldrillard's
va rious ccstasies or Vi rilio's econom ies of speed; it seems lhat postmoderni ly
is biggcr than all of us. Performance is not only free to, but forccd to, pa r­
ticipatc in global ccstasies and cultural bonowings with very low ra tes of rct um
to the source cultures. As Johannes Birringer has emphasiseu :
This colonizing j!OIV incorporales al! arl 01' cultural formol" as long as
Ihey can he m aJe lo reÍl!/órce lhe consumpliol1 o/Ihe 'audio-visual
.\j){/ce· ... Ihe lopography o( houndaries bellreen natil'e and ./óreign.
dominanl and !11arginal, is made> LO disappear illlO Ihe audio-rimal
.\pa('e o/a 'glohal culture ' !11odelled on a c1osed-circuit l!Jeory. 14
Such tendencies are indeed visible in the work of groups such as Japan'$
'Dumb T ype', who consciously elide their cultural difference in the belieftha t
the differences between Tokyo and other major cities of the world are rapidly
disappearing. Other performers such as Sha Sha Higby arrive at this point
from another anglc. Her dance performances rescmble nothing so mllch as
an inter-cultural costume change which comes pcrilously dose to a fashi on
display - borrowing appcarances as if the differences betwccn whole cultures
and ethnicities were no longer significant, as if the differences no longer
existed in any significant way.
Indeed , much of the debate in performance at the moment seems to centre
around the political am biguities of such borrowings, trying desperately ­
after the ract - to determine whether it might be possible to rewrite ethical
considerations faster than artists can protlt from colonising third world cul­
tures and crossing sex and class divisions. The more we can observe advanced
technologies and a metropolitan consciousness ruling our perception , Úle
more technologically framed and determined ideas about cities \ViII come
to dominate whole cultures. As Birringer emphasises, such ideas would be
mistaken , it 'is él scenography that also speaks 01' the failed replacement of
History; the audio-visual space of mass media , however dominant, cann ol
quite sublimatc the exclusionary boundaries of class and race ... ' For Birringer.
the theatre. as opposed to the mass media, 'is more revealing in its limitatio ns
since i t does not operate in a virtual space. It has always becn closely COD­
nected to a historical space' .IS
RecJamation and re-inscription
Recent wo rk with older lechnologies ha:; bcen la rgely dcrived rrom the Fu lu r­
ists. who idolised machi n~ for lhcir visi ble src:cd and ror lheir ability ll)
1';(
fTFfl ll Tr,\TlNfí l'RrSFNC I;
l"alal ysc ¡: IIIIIII ~ II t(O a pcrtllanenl slale (lr Illarkd expansion. I" Whilc lhe
visual aud ;llIdial I!j/i'C'ls lIf lh~ l1ew lechllologics are orlen spectacular, thc
techllologi.:s Ih':lIlsdves are largcly invisible. Thcy ofTer no visual manifesta­
lion such as that which inspired lhe original ltalian and Russian Futurists,
yet they have still sho\Vn an ability to catalyse culture with a speed which
would blind even Marinetti . This difference in visibility also effects perform­
ance. In many ways the purpose 01' performance no longer seems to be Úle
valorisalion of new technologies but rather their interrogation. Performance
seems increasingly moved to educate its audiences back to a point where the
new technologies become visible and accessible. In ¡[his way education about
technology is inevitably going to destroy postmodern illusions about tbe lack
of technology's limits. much as the sudden experience 01' World War One
shattered a number of Fulurist iUusions .
In this educative and interrogative project Lauri e Anderson has been a
brilliant pioncer. The work of Jill Seott and Derek Kreckler has also moved
in similar ways, building bridges between blind faith or abjection in the
technoscape and reinstating the remnants of a memory 01' a human culture in
contact with the body and landscape. Crucial to the work 01' these three
artists and indeed the project in general, has been the relationship between
video and the body. When video becomes the basis for the structllre of the
wholc performance (or when the performance is recorded and played back
as a 'performance video'), it is hard to see this project as ' performance' any
longer. This is so, even though it may rely, as sorne recen t French dance does,
on the (cleverly edited) physicality of the performers. Jt may be 'Video A rt'
but the basis for its approach to bodies, objects and their interaction is not
what we might call 'gravitationallanguages' but rather e1ectronic languages,
the signal and post production techniques.
Yet sorne of the best perfonncrs hure moved ioto video production during
the last decade - Jill Scott for example. When Scott was asked in an interview
whether her shift to video work represented a renuneiation of the physicality
01' performance. she replied
Nol al a/l. /'111 slill doing il, hui il's fór Ihe camera. !t's enúrely
Iral1.\/erred. Whal! re>ally l/sed lo hale Iva.\" nol having conlrol. For a
lime! rea!!y Iiked Ihe lV170le risk componenl. Thel1 e/jier a while, !
pro vee! al! IIUlI, Ihal ! could take lhose risks. Now /'1/1 much more
inleresled in conlrol perjórf11at/ce jór lhe camera . .. The elemen/ oj"
con/rol can be played Wilh in lhe pre-produclion leve/. nol (lnly in Ihe
posl-prodllc/ioll. 11
Video Art asitlc. I h~rc ,Irc 1lI:1t1y illSlanCl!S where video is neither lhe basis of
lhe re rforlll<lIlcl.' Ill)r IIlCti!ly ¡tll .1~·C\H ll r :tni l11cn llO il. Derek Kreckler's wo rk
in particula r has in tc).!J illl.!d vhk" JI~'t l"urll1¡tm.:e. ¡lnd in thl! lates!. !nlerrup­
IÍlJII.\·, aud il)-salllrlin~ . 1I 11~ \\nl k Il ll' l ti '. dl'l ill le-d IIl1cnlio n as an cXCllll plc 01'
h
 Mn,"" ¡l,Ni] '!'II t ' IINclI ," ""
thl: produl:ti vC" illkgrali\lll llf vatÍolls t1\:W Il'lltllll l" ¡JIl'¡iI dl'lIl11nlS with , he I¡ve
presence a nd I"orce 01" pcrl"ormal1l:c and Ihe pl:rI o nlllT.
As usual with Kreckler's work, InlerruptiO/l.I' is deceptivcl y si mple in stnu,;­
turc and ingredients, I ~ The performa nce begins with a la rge screcn in fúm l ..,1'
whil;h a woman aITives to deliver a leeture. ostensibly on James Joyee's UIY,I'sl',\' ,
Her mouth is hall' open to begin when she is interrupted by a 'wo rker' who
makes a lot 01' noise wilh bits 01' tangled wire ami bolts in a tin buckel
(already the framework oflanguage is being defeated by noise), A fte r several .
inereasingly furious attempts to stop the interferenee, the lecturer sudde nly
bccomes distracted, a tittle as if in a dream but more as if doped up to the
eyeballs, The Iights dim , she stares into space and simultaneously, a samplecl
soundtraek begins and video images are projeeted onto a huge screen, U nd er­
neath the screen sit fifteen perfonners lit by a blank slide from a slidc
projector.
The video images at this stage consist 01' personal pronouns run so q uickJy
after each other that attention is ehiefly drawn to the font in which they
appear. At the same time, the performers repeat an initially audible word in el
seemingly arbitrary , but actually carefully constructed, erescendo, The word
is 'everyone'. This continues for about five minutes until the crescendo sud­
denly cuts. The performers freeze and the video projects chopped viguettes
from American TV shows. These are both dcliberately hallal and also abso­
lutely appropria te to the performance situation - two TV hostesses talk
abollt the ' nice audience' and a humdrum looking male talks about beauty
and mediocrity. The performers then suddenly turn to look at the 'dreamer'
and begin theír ehant again, a chant which would almost be machine-Iike iri l
were not so arbitrary. Sampled music sounding a little like a carousel going
three times its normal speed then comes in , with a sampled opera singer
singing 'dream ' over and over again. Amidst this organised cacophony, lbe
last images on the screen are of a spinning globe and then statie. The performers
then go baek to their seats, the '\Yorker' cleans up and fina1ly the 'lect un:r'
\caves, embarrassed, often long after the audience has already applauded .
The beauty ofthis piece was that a1l ofthe separate clements were aekn ow­
ledged within their o\Yn structural parameters, and yet, far from domin ating
each other, they contributed to a kind of mutual deconstruction. One did no!
merely experience the skill 01' the performances, which included elements 01"
naturalism and blatant u-realislI1 , video manipulation, audio sampling a nu
composition and so forth. The audience was forced into realising that eac h
element not only performed its duty we1l but had that duty reduced in lhe
process to its most basie e1cments,
T he screen used in the performances for video projection was so hllge thal
the spectator was forced to acknowledge the tex lUre 01' the video image, its
physica l co nstructi o n. The very process of ack nov,r1edging and posilion ing
subjectivity (exemplified by the pen;o nal pro noul1s ) hocamc ¡lbo a q uestiulI ­
ing or Lhe relalion 01' cmnplller sty lcd IOl1ls lO lhul su bjedi vi ty. LanguHl.'.1!
J"'R
ro.¡ '~I ; ~ I I ' A , I N (¡ (' It l ' S, N ( , "
hl ol<,c d llW II wllrd hu I g.ilim:d its t'orce as il IIJsI ils Ille<llling in the
tll I lIll'
crcSl:~l1 do, !'I II S
\Vurd, 'cvcryol1c ', was not an insignifieant one lo be pared
dowlI to lhe force it carried in tlHlt situatioll. A lectu rc - the dissemination
01' know1cdge - ab ou t the quintessential modernist text no less - finishes in
white noise, visual sta tic and an embarrassed ' realist' performer who has becn
staring into space forfive minutes,
The ",,:hole performance of Jl1lerrup/ion.l' is contcxtua li sed by the question­
ing 01' the relations between subjecti vity and the med ia infor mation techno­
logy that has enabled the performance to take place, And in the performance\
original Australian context, the Am ericanness of the video quotes have a
distinct cultural meaning. The piecc does not just play with , but rneuls the
fractal naturc 01' our media experience and the etIect it has on our subjectivities
and their fantasies. Yet in sorne ways , through the process 01' rehearsal , the
performers were caught in the structures 01' repeatability that sampling and
the other technologies demanded as a result o r performing )lJith thcm. The
force and tension 01' the crescendo camc from the subjugation ol' the pcrform­
ers to the editcd constraints 01' the accompanying sights and sounds. The
piece thereby ult imately retumed to the very position it scemcd to question,
Thc finaJity oCnarrativcs
When Lyotard proclaimed the end 01' the 'grand narratives' in Tlle Pos/­
l
l110dern COl/dilion '! he did not, 01' course, mean the end 01' all narratives. r he
narratives have not disappeared but rather changed. Their o perative force
has just found more efficient spaces through which to flow . They increasingly
opera te through the invisible efficiencies 01' technological interfaces and their
careful regulation 01' subjeetivities. Performance using technology has often
dwelt on the absence of narra ti ve, but the opposite, ie how narrativc )lJorks
/hmugh technoIogy is as important. SimilarIy, it is important to demonst rate
how that technology requires its own set 01' supportive mystifications all d
processes in order to channel human energies through narrative flows. Such
concerns are strongly evident in Laurie Anderson 's work. As Rose-Lee
Goldberg has pointed out, Anderson has sought to demystify sorne of these
new narrative flows through the use 01' the vcry same technology which they
now through:
... Unitcd States was aflallened lal1dscape i/UlI (he media Cl'olutiol1
had lefi he/¡ind , . . 011 Superman, u .\'ol1g al ¡he hear/ oltlle show, ltias
([n appealfi)/' hel" agllins/ ti/(' manipula/ion (Jllhe cOl1lrollil1g media
('ullltre: il \\'(/.1' tI/(' ('/01' ot(/ g('I/('/"(/tirill exhau.\'led hy Inedia arúfice2 0
h 1r Baudril la rd and 1ll ; II1 V 111 hl' l 'i hll\VL'vc r. Iha I cry is nul one 01' anguish , but
01' ccslasy, An cest a.,y (11' a Il'L' II Il , j l' lpll': d wo rld so pre-connectcd that il is
wi lhoul (i ncJiviJua l) IliIlTIIII \I \ ', Wll hlll ,,"I'l l ;¡ world view. it is 01' eou rsc
19 1
iI\l pllssill ll.' lo c ha 1'1 Hlly S0 11 (11 CO III S\' Ih it II IP II 1 ht' 11111 ni Iives pI' I c~h l1()l n/.(lt'a I
culturc. T hc I'calisl view lhal evclylllil1 g 111 lb\.' WI l! ILi IS kll Dwahlc (II S11l1l1y
within set Ma rxi!:¡1 nar rat iv~s) ralls loul \)r its rdian<,;c on tlmsc Ilurra livcs UIIU
taxonomies which no longer apply in thc wo rld tedll1o'ica pe. Blll h 13a uu rill arLi
and the realists indulge in d a ngero us projections. In the fo rmer \Ve arc lotal1 y
overwhelmed by 'connectivity' (we might call this the 'fea r 01' the moth er' ,
with its attendant ecstasy); in the latter, the project íon that we are 110t drow n­
ing but still waving the red flag in the technological ocean (the clinging to Ihe
phallus, or in the case of writcrs such as Howard Ba rker, plwllic ahjection
T ve lost my flag '). Such approachcs are of course at odds with m uch
feminist politics and theory a nd as Jill Nolan has emphasised, 'femi nis l
performa nce theorists have ... ehastised the eommodified brands of posl­
modernist performance that devolve into an endlcss plurality 01' meaning:
a chic, politically apathetic ennui; or a retrograde nostalgia for master
narratives ' .21
80th the postmodern anxiety about being overwhelmed by technology and
the realist anxiety about not having the picture soon enough, are profoundly
il1/efleclua¡ anxieties, often more relevant to the acq uisition of academ íc
knowledge than to the operation 01' knowledge in Iived social relations. Th is
is especially so when it comes to actual relations between kn owledge and
technology. Performance is perhaps the only significant mediation between
the two , beca use it crea tes a redundancy oftechnology in a situation margina l
to social functions. This is especially the case when technologis use in per­
formance is compared to its enonnous produL:tive potential and seamless
operations in other positions within the market. It is this very r eclUfldal1 cy, as
in the performances of Laurie I\nderson or Japan 's Dumb Type group wh ich
can make our social rc\ations to technology apparent, and which , as in ¡l1Ier­
rupliol1s , can help us define the way in which technology participates in the
construction 01' our subjectivities. These performances also have the crucia l
function 01' showing us how things actually IlIork.
The la ter stages 01' capitalism depend not just on technological efticiency,
but also upon the narrative mystique of that efficiency . This has made lhc
politics 01' performance the more complex, as it must avoid buying into the
new narratives of technical mystique whilst pointin g to the actual fractal
function of narratives and technological ftows . Without such precautions,
performance will effectively function to support the market mentality 01"
capitalism in much the same way as the Italian Futurists did Y Peter Nich olls
has taken this parallel further, comparing the Postmodern perception 01"
Western culture to the Futurist's 'destruction of syntax ' in favour of a n
' abstract grammar of functional mathematical signs'. 21 Taking Baudrillanfs
America14 as his specific rcferent, he argues that the book 's ' rather lame
conclusion' that Iife, in America ' is cinema', signals <In a poca lyptic el isio n 01'
cul t ure and technology' , a tendency which signaLs amI preci pita tes the
'end o f tJle spea king subjecC.:!.< Refer ring baá lo n a uu ri llarJ's ca rli er work
lW
//1 1/". .....·/tl/d, lll, /,/ I /¡(, ....·"ml M(f/orit lt'.I', '1, Nldll)lIs a l ~w cs Ihal Bau J rilbnl's
l'\lll h: llli n ll 111;11 il I ~ olll y possihk lo abolísh eo nlelllporary syslc ms by push­
I n~' Ihcm ill lo ' 1I ypc r-l llgic' 'sccms. fillally, Iess a ground 01' possible negati oll
Ihall li kc I"u lurism a ucl iriolls slIITender lo forces which must always
he hé)'ond control and undcrstandingY For Nicholls the salienl point to be
I('arnl froll1 Ihe comparison 01' these two spcctacular theorisalions of tech­
1I01llgical modcrnity is that their grand systems ultimately reveal themselves
lo he 'fantasíes and not unspeakabIe necessities' .",1 This is the Poslmodern
(klusion.
Puppets, gods and machines
I'resent theories about technology have lefl us with a reflection and n o ori­
ginal. Baudrillard 's simulacra, Jacques Lacan 's language of broken eggs
(which come from making an /¡On1mClelle) or Heinrich von Kleist 's bodies,
which , in his story 011 The lv/ariol1clle Tltealer, are drawn into their own
rcllection (consciousness) and become bodies without their original ' gracc' N
all embody this quality. Theatre, packed to the brim with all the deferrals
Ihat mimetic consciousness can offer, has, since ils depéuture from ritual
inlo reflection , never really recovered that original grace. Yet, is this so 01'
performance?
J ust as it is easily forgotten that many 01' the theories about sim ulacra (and
so on) were devel oped in re.\ponse lo aspects of c\assical philosophy a mi its
wnstant acting o ut o f mimetic deferral , it is similarly forgotten lhat thc
'absence of presence' currentIy perceived in dassical thea tre is not the sume
'prcsence' as that which manifests itself in performance. 1t increasingly ap­
pears that presence in performance lies outside the dichotomies wh ich sti ll
cxist in c\assical and postmodern thought. It is therefore performance which,
avoiding the pitfalls of c\assical mimeticism, reactionary postmodernism and
I"ailed realism , and more importantly, avoiding reflection ; may find some
,'iense of grace within Ihe bodies and actions involved. Chantal Pontbriand
has characterised presence in performance \Vork as 'an obvious presence. not
a presence sought after or represented ', a 'desire lo discover ... a here/n ow
which has no other referent except for itself '?J Accepting this characterisa­
lion , \Ve can see that performance offers a way in which, even if only for a
momen!, the participants and event can come c10se lo recovering the grace of
illnocents, puppets and gods in Kleist 's story.
Such a perception can even lead us lO a more radical perception. Perhaps,
with its a-("ol1scious puppet-like grace and its distinctive relation to reflective
lIIimetic narratives , tcc hnology may also function in sOllle wave as pure
pnformancc. PCrfOrlmlllCeS IIsin ); lechnology do not have lo conform to the
pn:dolllinanlly lIihilislil' anli-t1assica l schcme of current E urocentric theory .
Thcy ca l1. ínsh:ad. opcrtll c o lll sidl' ()r 1he lú rgo l ien equ ation 01' mimesis, as an
ulllil hesis lo pus iti vist I"u il h. Ihl' p ll ppl'l I lIlIsh: r lu ncl iOI1 or
techno logy , its
\Id
 ~ II ,f) I ¡\ i\Nll l' I r,C ll j.¡nl,llI , '
u d.:ri ng anu di l ,,;-.;li ull \)t' hU lllall bOUK'lo , L'an he I1 ~I.'d lo l'lIac l a lihcr;¡ l ion uf
bol h lhose bodics and lit e rni ml.!lÍl: Il'Jlra llV!.: splil hl~l wccll bod y anu Cll n ­
sciousncss. As long as it is not lrying 10 rc pr~se lll nlimclicall y, or Qnlhc ('lher
ha nd , splash arouml in the sea 01' simulacra; performance wilh lechnol ogy
could, in short, return LIS to grace. T hi s would be a grace where 'c1umsincss' is
just another way lo perfo rm , not in itselfthe failurc of mimetic rep resenlali on
or 01' human cultural evolution . Kreckler's 1111errup'iol1s, by constantly uraw­
ing us in lo a present wh ich has less and less meaning, in which the sh adows 01'
mimesis dissolve as the perrormativc aspects 01' the pieee become more and
more productive; enacts a graceful puppetfy which ind ulges ilse1f in neither
mimesis Ilor a simple parody 01' simulacra . Such performanees are however,
perhaps rarer lhao o ne \Vould wish.
The body in perform a nce is now challenged to an un precedented extcn l by
technology. lt seems too often destined to have either the codings ofinforma­
tion technology (01' the beat of House m usic) forced upon it. As Philip Mon k
has emphasised, this tendency has profound effects and leads to the 'realisa­
tion ofa coded body'. In work which uses video 'as part ofthe live perform­
ance space' this results in an effect where 'just as the artist's body and actions
make that space, so the two, artist and video ... reconfigure a body between
them. A 'space' is 'composed' in performance through recording technologies
and distributive networks'. ' l In the case 01' works such as Elizabeth Chitty's
reknown Demo Model, this space has been used to speak 01' a body reduced
and cut-up by technology and to mourn the body as unified truth - sincc as
Rose-Lee Goldberg has written , \Ve 'can only d aim our bodies if we stop
claiming that they givc LIS truth '.'2
In the end, while tcchnology has real effects on real bodies, it is hard lO
avoid the notion that, in performance at 1east, technology sometimes enacts
a dispersal 01' more abstract subjectivities divorced from those bodies. This
may account for the 'live again and again ' phenomenon in sampling and
dance parties, wherc, according to Tony Mitchell 'the best dance music gives
a rccurring sense that however clumsy, we can, we have (but we can 't. we
haven' t) achieved a state 01' grace. 33 A similar illusory perccption may wen be
that which informs the current altitude to cnvironmental theatre in the
United States, where audiences seem 'interested in a novel experiencc, but
without the participatory demands or political agendas that charactenzed
much of the late '60s avant garde'.34
In both contemporary work and the style cstablished in the Sixties, techno­
logy often pro vides !Joth a bodily fantasy 01' grace and a kind 01' reaetion ary
alienalion effect that substitutes fetishism for 'real' grace. The body itse) f is
repressed and regulated through a co mbination of 'reproducible aliveness'
and the montage with whi ch lhi s is orchcstrated. Thus, performance rnay be
secn to embod y an effect 01' m.aking lhe body uocile ro r Íls tasks in thc
technological age llllless. lha! jl), lhe Il ows and endes Lh ro ugh which Ihe
livcu nlOlI lHgc is made are bn)ught inl,' some kllld o l di:-;on.h:r.
".'
t" ,
r.J I I ,() II A 1 I Nti I jlU 'il Ne l '
Notes
Sl!c '/'(,//.I'iol/ 11 11) .la 1I11ary 1990 p 14, wherc in its l'Ound up 01' the decadc' s art trend s,
it claillls Ihal Jill ()rr i,l' (/II iOng l"e/eH' lo (,lIrry perfámwl1c(, illlo I"e 80s.
2 It is worth noting that jou rnals such as Pe/jiml1(///ci' have flouri shed rol' most of
the Eighties by happily incorporating work with new teehnologies alongside more
'traditional' work.
:1 Quoted in Richard White 'An Interview with Terry Fox' in Gregory Battcock anJ
Robert Nickas (eds) The Arl o( Pe/jimnal1ce New York, E P Dutton 1984 p213.
4 Cited by Rob La Frenais in 'An In lerview with Laurie Anderson ' in Battcock ar¡d
Nickas oJ! dI p264.
5 For another perspeetive on this see Paul Brown ' Metamedia and Cyberspaee' in
this volume.
6 Josette H ml ' Performan ce and Theatricality: The Subject Demystified' J'¡,todern
Drama v25 ni 1982 pp 171 - 2.
7 Mea d !-Iunter 'Interculturalisrn and American Music' Per(orllling ArlS Journal
33/34 1989 p201.
8 ihid.
9 David Hughes 'Moving forwards and Backwards in Time' Performance 50151
1987 p25.
10 ibid.
1I Note fm instance Luee Irigara y's rernarks that 'The eyes or the seer are not open
to lhe world or the other in a contemplation that seeks and respects thoir ditTerent
horizons. Does he tllrn over the world as he turns his hand , his rlaything, his
creation') Co uld he rossibly plurnb the str ueture ofthe world, or encol11 pass it? Hut
what gesture, or qllality 01' gesture cOllld make him believe that he ha s encolll­
passed the world?' Cited by Brigitte Carcenac de Torne 'On The Male Sex in Luce
lrigaray's Theorising' Ar! Cll1d Texln20 1988 p105. In this sense, by thinking and
rnoving faster than the human body, new technologies have, for the lirst time,
ereated a world withill which man is obviously 'other' to himself and his \York,
There is of course nothing new to this position for those who have always takcll
the positioll of 'other' and much less angst about the whole thing ror them too .
12 Points rai sed by Ed Scheer in conversation with the author (1989).
13 Andrzej Wirth ',lllterculturalism alld Jcon ophilia in the New Theatre' Peljilfl1/ing
ArlS JouI'I/aI33134 1989 p185.
14 Johannes Birringer ' Invisible Citiesrrransculturallmagcs' Pelforming ArlS Jourtlol
33/341989 p129.
15 ihid rp130- 13L
16 See Peter Nich olls 'Futurism , gender and theories of postmodernity' in Te x tual
Praclice v3 n2 1989 r21O.
17 Jill Scott, quoted in Rob La Frenais 'Jill Scott' Pe/:!ilflllance n42, 1986 p26.
18 Inferrupl;ol1s lVa s tirst pefo rrned in Sydney in 1989.
19 Jean-Francois Lyotard The Poslll1odertl COl1diliol1: A Repor! (In Kl10wledge Man­
chester LJniversüy Press (UK) 1984.
20 Rose-Lee Goldberg Perfórnwllce Ar! London, Thames and Hud so l1 1988 p190.
21 Jill 'Oolan ' In Ddcnse of the Discourse: Materialist Feminism, Postrnodernism,
Poststrllcl uralisrn ... and Theory' Tlle Drama Reviclt' v33 n3 p60.
22 As Peter Nicholls has pointed out. 'Fllturism proposed a view ofcapitalisrn whose
ext reme implicati ons were to a large extcnt obseured by the Jisrnissive (and non­
po litical) interp rewt iol1 s of the Anglo-Ame rican avant-gardc. For modern izRb on,
<1;; it was hailed by Marinetti and hi s colleaglles, amOllntcd to more than a series 01'
sl ll nning tel.:hnnlogical innovatiollti: il clltuilcd 1he cx.tension or the ll1arket'. Nicholls
"f' c'il p20:! .
 1'" I ~ I • • i \ t\ l "'l l ' 1 ' .' I I J " , , 16 1 J • • 1

2.3 iNd r 2 1/.

24 Jt:an Baudrillard / //l/crim Lundon , Ve rsll 1<)Xi'I .

25 Peler Nichalls op di p217.

87
26 Jean Ba udrillard In T/¡e ShadOlv o/lile Si/enl Majoriúe.\· Ne w York , SellÚI)tex ((t: )

1983 .
27 Peter Nicholls op cil p217. T H E A RT OF PUPPETRY I N T H E

28 ibid
29 See the passage for example where Kleist's protagonist relates thal 'l \Venl hathing AGE OF MED I A P RODUCTION

\vith a young nHln whose constitution lhen displayed rema rkabk grélce _ .. Il
happened lhatjll st él short time before. in Pari s, \vc had seen the ' yollth dra wlng a
splinter from his foot '; thc statue is well known . . . A gla nce that he cast in a lélrge
mirrar the momenl he placed his foot on a stool to dry it otTremindcd him ofil: he
smiled and told me whal a discovery he had made . .. Ilaughcd and replied thal he
was probabl y seeing ghosts! He blushed, aud raist:d his root a second time to show
me . .. the expe riment failed. Confused , he raised his root a lhird and rour th .
Ill ay be even ten times'. In vain! - (h was all downhill from here for the poor yo ung.
no\V graeeless, Illa n) Heinrich von Klei st 0/1 The ¡\;/llrio/1elle Thealer in Michcl
Feher (ed) Fragmelll.l'jór a H islory o/Ihe Human B(J(~J': Par! One New York, Zo nc
1989 pp4 18- 9.
30 Chantal Pontbriand The eye finds no fixed point on which to rest ... ' Mode/'ll
Dram({ v25 nI pi 57.
JI Philip Monk 01' di pp I 64 5.
32 Rose-Lee Goldberg cited in Jill Dolan op di p68.
33 Tony Mitchell ' Perfo rmance ami the Postm odern in Pop Music' Thealre ./ollrl7ilf
v41 nJ p280.
34 Steve Nelson 'Redecorat ing the F ourlh Wall: Environrncntal Theatre Toda)" T/¡e
Drama Re viell' v33 nJ p73.
Steve TilIis
Sourcc: Tile J)reall/ Revieu': 77¡e .!oumaf of' Peljiml1l1l1(;C SlUdie' 43(3) ( 1999): 182 195.
The figure I havejust created has the bealltiful sheen ofpolished wood. As it
walks along, its face catching the lightjust so , I feel a little proud- and more
than a little amazed. For l have neither touched no r carved into the figure ,
and 1 control it with neither strings nor rods. This figure --wh ich, if I were to
continue my labo rs, 1 could place amidst similar flgures in a production of,
say, Hamlet- has never had any tangible existence. It is nothing more, and
has never been anything more, than a series ofcomputer commands that have
reslllted in a movin g image on a screcn. 1
The figure- m y IlamJet, let us continue to say, who makes bo ld enough to
teH the traveling Playcrs "to hold [ .. . ] the mirror IIp lo nature"-is not itself
of nature: il is 01' a new breed of figures that perform primaril y in the media ol'
film. video, and cybernetics (i .e. , computers). More specifically, it is like certain
of the dinosaurs in Stephen Spielberg's The Los{ World (1997) and aH 01' the
characters in John Lassiter's Toy Story (1995) , being a figure of computer
graphics (Duncan 1997:8 1 and passim; Pixar/Walt Disney Pictures 1995).
Computer graphics figures (also kn own as CGI, "computer graphics im­
ages") are not the only members of this new breed. Somewhat older in their
lechno logical origination are the kind of figures in Tim Burton's The N(f!;hl­
/l/are Bejóre Chrisll1U1.1' (1993) a mI in the central portion 01' Henry Selick's
James {/l1d Ihe Gial1{ Peach (1996): stop-action (a Iso known as stop-motion)
figures. For the moment , let me speak of the characters created through
computer graphics and stop-action as " media figures ": figures whose per­
formance is madc possihk Ihrough techn ological mediation. Indeed , there is
ycl anot her kind lll' lig un: I hal in Jll Wl y respects may be said to bel ong to this
llCW b rced , amI lIw ugh il i~ Il \l ! sLrit.:tl y a med ia tlg urc, it is most often to be
t~H1 nd 0 11 tiJm ()f vide\) Olíe \.::1 11 ~.l· L· I l1l'se fi p llrc~ in a great many contempo r­
a ry fil mli . includ ill j,! Ilally ",I iI 1Il! 1i1 , Id .. M m ill ml/d, (1 997). bul also alllong

16.1 \¡ . 1
 1\'11 .,'/\ ANP I'IlC ' I I N fll l lI, \ '
1111,) 1 t; ~ id ¡: lIl lll1l1 1i \ill gc haru",tc rs a l l>i:-l1\;y lull d l h ~'.,c 11 11': <lllilllalrull ic liglln.:s
(potllroy 1997; J\ nderson I lJl)7).
It mighl sccITI thal lhe vario lls fi gures I have I11cnlioned do anylhing hui
"hold a mirror up to nature"' being, in th e maín, fig ures ort'antasy; but t his
is as much a function of eeonomics as artistry: Why bother wiLh the expense
of a " naturalistic" med ia image when an actor can perform such roles easily
enough? Media figures are, thus, left most often to enact non -na tmaJjstie roles.
at which they happen lO excel. Ln this rega rd , the fi gures are rather similar lo
puppets as we have known thern, which have frequentl y held up lhe m irror
less to nature than to the untrammeled imagination of the puppet-artist.
I t has proved difficult. however-at least from the perspective of puppetry­
to make m uch theoretical sense 01' media fi gures: How are they like or un lik c
puppets as \Ve have known tbem , and on what basis might some or all ofthem
be considered puppets? Media figures share with puppctry the crucial traíl
01' presenting charaelers through a site of signification olher than actual
living beings. 2 While this trait is certainly neeessary fo r their indusion into
the world of puppetry, is it sufficient? What follows is a preliminary attcmpl
to answer lhese questions. As computer graphics figures seem to offer the
greatest challenge to p uppet theory, they will be the primary subjcct of my
remarks. What 1 have to say, however, will have a bearing on stop-action and
animatronic figures as well , and so 1 \ViII mention them again toward the end
01' this essay.
It seems almos! obligatory to refer, preferably in one's title, to Walter
Benjamin's landmark essay of 1933, "The Work of Art in the Age ofMechan­
ical Reproduction. "] Such a reference, however. is useful here primaril y to
sho\\' how Benjamin 's critiquc of mechanical reproduction (most especialJy
as it occurs in film) is inapplicable lO media figurcs , amI so to suggcst th a t
these figures prescnt a new problem for theory.
"Even the most perfect rcproduction of a work of art, " Bcnjamin writes,
"is lackin g in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence
at the place where it happens to be" ([1 933]1969:220). For the actor working
on film- and , by extension, for th.e film puppet as well--this " presence" is
spokcn 01' as an " aura"; Benjamin makes much of the actor's "feeling 0 1'
strangeness [ ... ] before the carnera," occasíoned by the fact that, in front o f
the camera, one musí forgo one's "aura"- that is, one's actual presence (229
30). Again , by extension, one might speak 01' the puppet's aura as well. wilh
the puppet conceived of as a " work of are' that, as with all works 01' art, "has
its basis in rituaL the location of its original use" (224). Puppets ca nnot. 01"
course, feel strange in front 01' a camera , but thcir lack 01' fecling does nol
obviate thc estrangement that takes place when tbe actuality of their physiea l
presencc is reduced to a mere two-di mensiona l loo k-ali ke, Medi a fig ures ,
however most obvi ously th ose crca lcu through co mputer gra ph ics ca nnol
generall y be said to lose l!leir preselll:c in ti me ami space when presenleJ l1y
lheir pa rlicular Illcúiu ll1, fnr Iheir prcscncc i ~ aduall y cn:aled hy lhe Il1cd iulll .
1hl!
\1('1' "1' t' 1( P I¡ ' I'I ' ,(\' I N I\(i' 111, M'I IJI\ 'l IUllllI('I I ()N
lil e)' :m: 111> 1 1I1l:t1 I.1 Icproductillns, lh a l i!'l, hui origi na l produclions made
p()ssi bk IhlO ug h Illedia. "Tll al which wilhers away in the agc of mechanical
reproducl ion. " wrilcs Benjamin , " is lhc aura 01' the work o f arl" (221 ); bul in
lhc agc 01' mcdia prod uction, il is thc aura of the work 01' art- a work withoul
any " unique existencc" in time and place- that is created. Mcdia figures a re
something new , not only chronologically but also conceptuall y. and just as
Bcnjamin' s analysis is incapable 01' accounting for them , neilher are they
accountable by concepts of puppetry that have their basis in the puppets we
have herclofo re known. For better or for worse , the agc of media production
is a new agc that musí be accounted for on its own tcrms,
There have been at least t\VO serious altempts to provide something 01' an
accounting !'rom the perspective ofpuppetry. In 1991. the Board oflhe North
American Center for the Union Internationale de la Mari onnette ( U NIMA­
USA) voted to Greate , along with its Citations of Excellcnce for " Iive " puppet
performance. a citations category for " puppelry in video. " later expanded to
encompass all "recorded mcdia " (Levenson 1992: 1). Pursuant to that end ,
Mark Levenson , then Chair of the UNI MA -USA Citations Committee, dcvised
criteria for en tries in the nc\\' category, and confronted, along \\'ilh other
matters of eligibility, the vital question of what. in the context 01' " recorded
media ," constitutes a puppet (2). The " test" lhat Levenson proposes runs as
follo\\'s:
Technology must not be used to create thc puppetry, only to record
it. That means that the performance must be at aJl times under the
control 01' a live, h uman puppeteer, performing in what computer
rolks call " real time. " Tbis performance is recorded and the recording
may be manipulated (i.e. , edited) prior to presentation to Ihe audience.
(2)
Levenson goes on to note tbat his proposed test would "exclude traditional
and stop-motion animation," but would " indude animatronic figures if their
animalion were creatcd by an operator in real time" (2); he does not address
computer graphics figures , which had already come into being at lhe time of
his writing, bul it is obvious that he would exclude them also from the real m
nI' puppetry. 1 should add that Levenson's critcrion of "real time" (hereafter
lO be wriltcn as " real-timc ") apparently refers to a synchronicity bctween
lhe puppcteer's control and the puppet's resultant movem ent. (Curiously,
Lcvcnson is not cOllccrncd wilh real-time vocal performance. probably beca use
il is so rare in film amI vidco.) J\n allcrnate meaning of real-time would refer
lo a synchronicit y Ilol lllll y ot' co nlrol and 1110vement, but 01' audi ence recep­
1ion as well , W hCII l'on 1( Hit el'jll:l pll ¡es lig ures are elllployed for sueh " real-time
()pcralion anu n.'L'epl ion " pl'l lu lllI:ll1i.'L' as I will Ji sc Llss bcJow. the generally
acce ptcd lcrm ror Ihel\ l I ~ " pt' l j¡" I III. III ~" allilllal il)ll" (se\! , rol' cxamplc. Lu:;k in
IIJ ( 7),
1m

 ' l lT tJ I 1\ p 1- "
O fll' uf tlll; IllOst slt ih.i ng aspcc l ~ 111 LC\'I' II \ IIII '" " IC:-.t"' is bol\' il ¡;I:h()c~
Bcnjami n's argul11cnl. T he dietu m thal " lcdllll ll vgy nlllst nl,t pe uscd tI)
create the pll ppctry, ol1ly to record it" seetlls bllt another way 01' say ing that
eligibility for the Citati on should be limited spel:ifically to p up pctry Ih a! is
" mechanically reproduced " on video or film. No doubt Ci tations honoring
excellenee in recorded puppetry are a valuablc t'unetion OfU NIMA-USA . ami no
d o ubt Levenson has proposed a useful test of inc\usiveness. But the inabilil y
o f Benjamin's argument to aecount for media images is renected in Levenson's
near-categorical exdusion 01' them from consideration . Levenson recogni zes
lhat media figures are in some way fundamentally different from puppets as
we have known them ; his prererence (which arises at Icast in pan from (he
insti tutional con tex t for which he proposes his test) is simply to put them
aside. as a rule , rather lhan lo consider them a lS- ul Icast potentially-the
puppetry o f tomorrow.
The second serious attempt lo grapple with media figures and puppct
was undertaken in .1994 by Stephen Kaplin, in an essay entitlcd "Puppetry
into the Next Millennium. " Kaplin 's approach to media figures is diametric­
ally opposed to Levenson 's, as evidenced by his focus on "computer-based,
cybernetic technologi' (1994:37), While Levenson draws a strict distineti on
between puppetry and media figures (not even bothering explieitly to men ­
tion computer graphics), Kaplin eoncerns himselfexdusively with sueh figures
as puppets.
Kaplin writes offour " aspeets 01' the new technology that can be applied lo
puppet performance in the near future " (37); alternately , he ealls these aspects
"emerging sub-genres" (39). The first is "docu-puppetry," which makes USe 01'
"sampling, eropping, and re-editing" of media images and involves the
"depictation in puppet performance of factual and authoritative material,
illustrating historieal, social or cultural phenomena" (37). The second emer­
ging subgenre is "virtual puppetry ," whieh involves " performing objects that
cxist only within the computer, gencrated out 01' digitized bitmaps, given
tightly controlled behavior parameters and linked by manual eontrols to the
outside, human world " (38); this is. in essence, a description of eomp uter
graphicsllgures. The third of Kaplin's subgenres is "hyper-puppctry," which
is " a eollective extension , a corporate entity [01' a computer-generated puppet],
created out ofthe merged energies of[a theorctieally " unlimited" number or1
users/participants" (38). Finally, Kaplin writes 01' "eyber-puppetry," by wh ich
he means networked-eomputer puppetry with an onlinc, "interactive" dimen­
sion that "allows for the artist to conceive of performanees as collaborativc
creation[s] with the audience" (38).
It is exeiting to read Kaplin's vision of emerging fomls of artistic creatio n.
bul worth noting that a ll four of his subgenres are fundament aJly rcla ted ,
Docu- p uppetry, hyper-pllppetry, <Ind eyber-pllppetry. that is, are bul vari<l­
tions o f the virtual puppctry that he discus:;es: in eadl case. Kapli n envisi ons
the crealion and /or l11ani p ula tion. by on ~ or 111 111 C pcrsons. nI' computer
lM<
·ct' ·,.·••·. .- .·. .,- __ t -,
' Idp hl~: ~ Irlf ll les 111:, 1I1 ~1l W(lllh 11( )11 1I 1' 1!tI; l'USC \V III I whil'h K" plil! wrilcs ol'
Ill l'S!: fi gu res a:; pupp\!IS, Thcrc sccrns In h l':l 1I 1t11 pli l!d dcfinition uf puppe lry
11\' 1,,', whidl rUlls: ir Lhe sjgllilil:alio l! (Ir !ir\! eal1 be cn:aled by people, then
Ilu.: :-.ill' 01' lhat sigllificalion is lo bl! (;ol1siúered a puppet. This definition­
whidl. 1 shl)JJld cmphasize, 1 have rcad into Kaplin's essay- is revolutionary.
\'x pandillg lhc rcalm 01' puppetry bcyond all definitions that center upon
tlll' materia lit y 01' the puppet (01', to employ Benjamin's terms, the "unique
n istl:ncc" orthe puppet as an object in a "speeific time amI place"). rt would
',CC tll 10 encompass not only computer graphies images (and stop-aetion
;Ind a1l animatronies as well) , but also forms of art thal have been almost
IItlivcrsall y held distinct from puppetry, sueh as the eel (also known as ce1l)
;l1limalion popularized by Walt Disney.
Our efTorts to make sense 01' the relationship between media figures and
pllppets as we kn ow them , stimulated as these efforts might be by categorical
sl;tlcments (and implications) of one kind or another, must derive ultimately
l'mm an understanding 01' what media figures actually are. To that end, we
will do well to attend to the details ol' such 11gures, looking especially at how
IItcy are created and controlled.
Computer graphics figures, such as the Hamlet 1 mentioned at the start
(Ir lhis essay, involve. in effeet. three processes 01' crcation. F irst. a three­
dimensional abstract model of the figure is created in the form of mllltiple
polygons or a digital wire-frame;4 the model can be constructed from the
l'omputer keyboard (by which term l also inc\ude the computer mOl1se) o ut nI'
gcometrie shapes and/or lines, or can be imported into lhe computer lhrough
t Itree-dimensional shape-capture (the " capturing" 01' the look 01' a real-wo rkl
(lbject). I created the model for my Il a mlet from the keyboard , lIsing geo­
tlletrie shapes that l stretched and "deformed" into an approximati on 01' lhe
sltape of human limbs and then Iinked togcther; the model 1'01' the hcad 01'
roy Slory's Woody, on the other hand, was based on a clay seulpture whose
shape was captured by being scanned into a computer (Pixar/Walt Disney
Pictures 1995:8). There are, I need scareely say , extremely sophisticated com­
puter programs, commercially available, that indude " resident" polygon
and/or wire-frame bodies (some eonstructed, some eaptured from life) and
I herefore greatly simplify the task 01' construeting a model.
Designed into the model of the figure are the means for controlling its
",e stural movement;5 these are known as " articulation variables" (or, more
caslIally, as "avars "). One writer likens the avars to " the strings 01' a mari­
onette" (Pixar/Walt Disney Pietures 1995:6), but they are actually more like
1he articulation points 01' pllppets as we have known them ; indeed , computer
graphics programs ofTer a soleclion ofjoint-types quite Iike those available to
lhe pu ppel-bu Jlder. ind ud ing. hingc j oints. spherical (ball-and-soeket) joints,
anu so o n, a ll 01' wh idl ca n Ill' ddincd 1'01' lheir st itTness and range of
Il\()vc tllcn t. The tlum b!.!!, nI' :t v:r r~ 11 111 1 Illip hl hc in volvcd in a complcx model
is ashmi!ihill g: Iln: t1l ()~lc l 111 1 /''' \' -"ttl!'!"', WllIld y hall 2 12 tlvars in his fa ce
l/l')
 MI I J I /\ /\NII II:I"II~HII . ! I I ;'
alllnl.:, Sg ofw hidl WI.: IC Jeuic.1. Il:d 1\1 iIi ~ 11 1011 111 .t lll IW IIl ¡!. hilll al! ':XCé p li o ll lll
ra ngc nI' éxpn:ssion ami a capadl y ror sl mpi ng Id:. 1Illllllh for cad! pUf'li..:u lal
phoneme he would speak (8).
The second process in the crcalion of a computer graphics figu re is Ihe
definition of surface features for Ihe geometric model or wi re-fra mc. Thc
surface features might be selected out 01' individual characterislies 01' col o r.
texture, pattern. ami re Aectivity that a re resident in the computer graphil:,<;
program (and are kno wn a s "shaders"), or might be imported inlo the com­
puter through image-scanning (e .g., the "capturing" of rea l-wo rld images
s uch as photographs) . I created my Hamlet's surface features OUI o f resid en l
characteristics; the computer graphics figure of i'.1.en in B/ack's Jack Jeebs, on
the other hand, has the surface features 01' the " real " actor (in makeup) who
a Iso plays lhe charaeter (Pourroy 1997:20). The third process in creating lbe
figure is known as " rendering," and is the frame-by-frame compositing o r the
model ami its surfaec fe atures, along with the dennition 01' on e or more ¡igh!
sources and whatever worldly effects, such as shadows and fog, and camera
effects, such as lens fiare ruld depth 01' focus, are desired.
Now ifthe avars ofa computer grapbics figure are like a puppet 's articul a­
tion points (i.e .. joints), \Ve must ask what control mechanics are used to crea te
movement at those points and how those mechanics are themselves o per­
ated . Or, lo put the matter in terms 01' a marionette, what a re the " strings" and
ho\\' are they " pul1ed " to give the computer graphics fi gure its frame-by-rrrunc
movement (general1y referred to in the computer world as " animation ")'!
Two kinds 01' movement are relevant here: gestural movement , which , as I
have already explained , is movement pertaining to the "body" 01' the fig ure;
and proxemic movement, which is movement 01' the figure as a whole from
one virtuallocation to another.
Thcre are, in effect, two basic control mechanisl11s, each deriving from a
dirferent source of control, a1though in practiee these mechanisms and sources
are often used in combination. The first mechanism is known as "kinematics,"
and its source is the computer keyboard. Until a few years ago, "forw,trd"
kinematics were a ccomplishcd by defining a figure's movement at each ava l'.
generally working from the larger to the smaller limbs . For examp1e, to ha ve
a figure touch its n ose, one \Vould enter commands first to rotate the upper
arm, then the forea rm , then the finger that \Vould touch the nose (with eac h
rotation occurring at an avar). Recently, however, the development 01' " in versl'
kinematics" has allowed one simply to attach a " handle" to a certain part 01'
the figure, "grab" it with the computer mouse, and "drag" it to its desircu
10cation , wirh the necessary movement at related articulation points fo llow­
ing naturally along. the various joints operating according to thei r defl lll:d
stiffness and range of m o vement. To ha ve a figu re louch its nose, for e.\am pk,
o ne need on ly grab a ha nd 1c at the fi gure's nngcrti p and d rag it to lhe nl>!lC;
lhe wrist, dbow, and shou lder (and , ir d esircd, Ihe u J'lpcr lorso as wcll) wi ll
ro ta tc accord ingly. I nvcrsc kinema lics, Ih us. has mad\.' lite ).!~s tll ra l- m ovemunl
no
It I '11 /, 1 1 J' 1' 1' I It \ IN 1\ Cj I! 1I!.....-¡q'ITPT-;"- P-I'("rl p , ITTlfTN
Il H!¡; It ¡ IIII 4.'~ \1 1 \.'llI llp llkl
g r:lph i¡;s 1i) 'I H \.'S 1I II Iy !11I :dogI Hl s lo lile sl n nl!S (1 1' I'l Hls
"r jluf1pd s . IS WC know Ihc lll.
Once a geslllre has bcen " delillcd ," il can bc savcd rol' la ter use ill lhe COIll­
I'lIlcl''s memory: once one has delined nose-tollching, say, or the movel11ent
(Ir Ihe lips ror lhe phon emc "em," one can casily rcca ll it ror usage as often as
(lile wal1ls. More complex gestural movements such as walking require the
illlegration of l11ulti ple movement definitions, such as for the arms and the
I.:gs. The task is slight1y less complicated than it might seem, however, since
Ihe movement derincd for one limb can be recalled (and " (l ipped ," if neces­
sary) for its opposite; a lso . inverse kinematics will allow certain aspeets 01' the
Illovement to fo ll ow naturally. On the other hand , the walking gestllre 01' a
well-made complltcr graphics figure involves far more than the motion of
arms and legs: there are myriéld details to consider as weH, inc1uding patterns
6
01' breathing, the Ocxing of individual musc1es, and so on.
Proxemic movement is generated from the keyboard prim a rily through the
definition 01' " animation paths," in which one describes the route that the
figure will take from one 10cation to lhe next. The speed at which lhe figure
will move is a function ofthe number offrames that it will takc to trélverse lhe
distance, a lld must also be defined. Since computer graphics figures exist in
a three-dimensional virtual space, their animation paths can take them in
rront of objects, thus "blocking" the objects from view, or behind them ; also,
as they move " toward" or "away from" the virtual " camcra ," they will appear
lo grow larger or smaller , respectively. Another approach to proxemic movc­
Illent involves denning certain "physical" qualitics for the figu re, such as
ccnter 01' gravity, weight, and rebound characteristics (e.g., like rubber, ~teel ,
cte.). The figure can then be dropped , as it were, or tossed or spun , and it will
act in accordance with its defined qualities.
To create from the keyboard the walk of a figure across a roo m- as I
created the walk of my Hamlet- involves the bringing together 01' separately
defined gestural and proxemic movemenls: first one uses handles to define
lhe gestures that constitute walking, and then one dcflncs the animation path
and speed 01' lhe walk. This bringing together 01' movements is analogous to
lhc way that puppets are moved. A marionette, for example, al so has specific
gcstures 01' wa lking, created primarily with its leg strings: these walking ges­
lures are brought togcther with a proxemic path along which the marionette
is transported b y its main support strings. If, al the end of the computer
graphics figure ':; walk, one wanted to have it collapse on the floor, one could
simply lel it drop freely, with its fa ]] governed by its defined physica l qualities;
likewise, a marionetle wOllld collapse lo the ground, according to its reaI
physica l qllali li c~ in lh c nalllral wnrld. with a sudden slackening 01' the
Icnsion 011 il:; s u p r orl sil ¡II I ' S, 'lIl e main difTcrence between Ihe keyboard­
'rcakd walking uf;l l'pn lp lfl,'! ~lllI p I IK' ~ li,~ lI rc a nJ a p up pet is th a t the wa lk
(Ir Ihe r~mlH:r i~ p u in ~lltJ.. ill f l y \ 'I II IIII\I~cd " ve r a H ex tcnded period uf ti me,
whi k: the walk orth.; la t!l:l 1', I I\' dl ~'1 1 ,, 11 ¡11 "I ICe. in r,:a l-limc,
\'!I
 1\1l~1 ) I i\ .\ 1'11"1
'['he sccond control nH.:dlanis l11 ,'\" tillo' 1t1 11 \c r l1l: 1I 1 (11' compuler 1;!m phics
'"igurcs IS known as " mell ion -capture, " ano lhe ~\ l llrCC 01' control i~ Ihe hu ma n
body. M o tion-capture refcrs to the digital '\;apturing" orrea l-workl m Olio n­
gestural and/or proxemic- for its application to the computer graphics fi gu re.
The " capture" itself is made possible by a series of tiny transm itters or re­
fleetors that are placed on a de vice m anipulated by the perfo rmer: alternately.
the transmitters or reftectors can be placed directly on tile performer's b ody.
and the body itself " manipulated ," as it ",ere. In eilher case, the transmi tters
or reflectors are mech a n ically, magnetically , or optically tracked fOl' th eir
exact motion ; analogous points are defined ror the figure that wi ll be moved.
T he most well-known motion-capture device is lhe "Waldo" (a name trade­
ma rked by The C haracter Sh op), although the principies behind the Waldo
are in wide usage . The Waldo ís advertised , perhaps wíth tongue partly in
cheek , as an "ergonomíc-gon ío-kineti-telemetrie device." "Ergonornic" means
that the device is engineered to fit ("comfortably") the performer's bod y;
"gonio-" and " kineti-metric " mean that it "measures the angle and movement
ofthe wearer'sjoints and limbs," or, for that matter, the lips. eyes, or whatever;
and "telemetric" means that "the movemcnt data is [sic] measured and sent
via remote control " to the computer. The digitized data are then applied lO
the computer graphics figure . with thc result that the figure's "movement "
echoes, in " real-time ," that 01' the performer.
Waldoes , according to Character Shop Iiterature, seem to be eoneerned
primarily with gestural movement and, indeed, offer two ways 01' eontrolling
sueh movcment, The first might be termed a "physiognomie analogue," and
involves a one-to-one relationship between the body 01' the performer and
that of the figure: the opening and c10sing of the performer's mouth results in
an analogous movement by the figure's mouth. The second way of generating
gestural movement might he called " movement analogue, " and involves a
onc-to-another relationship between the movement of a particular part 01' the
performer' s body and that of a different part of the figure: the opening and
closing of the performer's hand , within a device rather Iike a standard M uppet
(or a hand -in-sock puppet), results in the opening and c10sing 01' the figure's
mouth.
Proxemic movement can also bc gcnerated through motian-capture.
Polhemus, Inc., for example, advertises a motion-capture system that allo ws
two performers to " interact together [ ... ] and to move freely within a 25
foot by 50 foot space" (Polhemus 1997) . lndeed, given that this system can
involve up to 32 receivers (placed on the performers' bodies), it can be said to
track much of the gestural movement that naturally occurs along wilh proxem ic
Illovement. There is a paradox here that migh t be worth noting. M ovement
generated from the keyboard is, as we h a ve seen, unlike puppet m ovement
in that it must be pa instakingly compo scd over él lo ng period of t ime. It is.
ho wever, quite like puppet movcment in th a l ils !!cslllral and pro xem ic
aspects are genera lly trCCl ted as indi viU UiIl fl rohlcllls. MtlVCment gcncnl lctl
l7,)
!\I( I 111 , 1'1 11' 1'1 ' Iln I N ¡\Iil 0 1 M I' IIIt\ " IUII>l 1t' II O N
tlt lU uglt 111 (1 111.11 I.'apllllc. ~1I1 lite llllt,~r Iland. can IX' quile lik'e puppet 1110ve­
11Il'll Iin Iltal il is gCllcrated, in rca l-time, through the ba dily exerlions of a
living bcing. It ¡s. howcvcr. unlike puppet movell1ent in that its gestural and
I'loxcmic 1ll0vell1cn(s need na t be treated individually, but can be dealt with
all at once.7
Motion-capture not only allows for real-time control of lhe computer
graphies ligure. bUl, wlth recent developments, now aJlows even for Lhe kind
lll'virtual "Iive" perfOlmance (i.e .. a synchronicity ofcontJol , perfomlance, and
n;ception) referred lO earlier as " performance animation. " Silicoo Graphics,
lile .. for example, has been among the pioneeTs in perform a nce animation ,
wltieh they can characterize as the use of motion-capture applied to a com­
puter graphics figure that allows the figure (on a video screen) to interact with
a ¡¡ve audience. ~
Should computer graphics figures be considered puppets? We recall that
Levenson would exclude them if only on the basis of the use of technology in
their creation , while Kaplin predicates his entire discussion of ne\V subgenres
1m their inclusion . The question might best be approached by breaking it
down into two distinet issues: the nature of these figures and the relationship
between them and their operators.
In dealing with the first issue, it will be helpful to ma ke use 01' the eo ncept
01' tangibility, with the root-sense of "tangible" be ing "capable of being
louched ," Computer graphics figures are not tangible- there is no touchab1c
"there" to them. As we have seen, there are striking similarities in the creatio n
of computer graphies figures and puppets: the creation 01' both invo lves the
eonstruction of a figure imbued with articulation points that is then given
surface design features . Both , in short, are artificial human constructs designed
for manipulation (of one sort or another) by people. And, as 1 suggested
earlier, both share the crucial trait of being sites 01' signifieation other than
"real " living beings (01' 01' images that are directly referent to such beings);
lhat is, in both cases the signs oflife have been abstracted from sites 01' actual
lite to be deployed by sites that have no actual life. On the other hand ,
however, even if a figure 's model were to be derived from 3D scanning (e.g.,
a c1ay sculpture), and even if its surface features were to be imported from a
tangible source (e.g., an actor's face), the figure itself would remain without
tangibility- a " virtual object" that would be, at most. an indirect referent to
material 01' corporeal objects. Now it might be argued that the conventional
111m or video i01age 01' a traditional puppet or an actor is also without
tangibility, but in such a case , the image is a direct referent to a material 01'
corpOl'eal object , nolwithstanding lhe ways in which directors amI editors
lI1ight makc use orlhal rckre nl.
Ilere then is a poi lll Iha l SClllIlS lo he 01' fundamental ill1 portance: p u p pets
as we ha vc k ll\Wl1 1 t !lC't ll l ilhll~' .I I ~·d oul 01' wunt!. c1olh. lh e l11ucb lamented
eclaslic. or wh a ll!V\:f' ¡ti !' WIII'Jllk [lhll'I' IS. whik com p uter g ra ph ics fig ures
a rc no\. Th isdifTcrcm:c 11I\' \llh' , ,lIfllllt'lI l Ih ~'o l ~'lil'al basis , Jes pi tc lile ma ny
\'/ ,\
 MI 1111\ i\NP 11 ! l' II NIII , II I;\
silllilaritícs sh arcd hy tlH:sC l W\l kim l!\ \\1 l i !!. l ll ~·~. I\JI dislill gu ish ill g hel WCCIl
lhcm. But I think lhe dislincli o ll necus lo be 111 M\.: slIbtl y pul Iha ll sim fl ly lo
dcclare p up pets and compulcr graphics figurcs lo be in l rínsically JiffcrcnL
bccausc tangibility seems to be the on ly si gnifican! and invariable diflCrcncc
bctween these two kinds of figures. Th llS , I propose that puppets as we havc
known them be thought 01' as "t311gible" puppets, wb ile computer gra phics
figures be thought of as " virtual " puppets (to borrow Ka pli n's term). T hese
usages will, I think, assuage traditionalists such as Levenson. since the seman lic
overtones ofthe modifiers "tangible" and "virt ual" are, respectively. "rea\" anJ
" not-quite-real ," and reflect the funda mental difference between the two ikinds
offigures. But l trust these usages will also satisfy vi,sionaries such as Kaplin
since the shared cmployment 01' the word "PIlPpeC' recognizes crucial simil­
arities between the lwo kinds 01' figures. Computer graphics figures--- virtual
puppets- are, as I have suggested, conceptually new aud owe their concep­
tion to the newness of the medium in whicb tbey exist; but as \\Iith everything
new, they are not at all unassociated with what has gone before thcm.~
If I am willing to accept computer graphics figures as virtual puppet s
before 1 even address the issue of the figures and their operators, it is because
this issue- generally cast in terms 01' " real-time" control by the operator
scems to me to be a red hcrring. As a rule, tangible puppets are operated in
real-time: as we have seen, however, virtual puppets might a!so be operated
in rcal-time- indeed, even "li ve."lll One respondent to Levenson's proposal
suggests that the criterion of real-time operation is significant in discussing
compute\' graphics figures beca use the control 01' th em " Iaeks the possibility of
mistakes --mistakes being the arbiter ofgood and bad performance" (Levenson
1992:3). Even for live performance, this secms a strange criterion: eertainly
the making of mistakes will mar a pcrformanee, but just as certainly a great
performance can contain more mistakes (a flubbed line, a misplaeed prop,
etc.) than a mediocre performance that is errorless but without passion or
intelligence. More to the point, the very idea of mistakes seems obsolete for
all non-live performance, whether mechanically reproduced or produced
through mcdia: mistakes can be edited out or relegated to unused "takes" just
as easily as they can be "erased" in media production. And , as a matter of
faet, mistakes remain in all kinds of non-Iive pcrfolmance when the replace­
ment 01' those mistakes does not seem worth the cost and/or effort.
Thc issue of real-time control seems less an issue of "What is a puppet?"
than one of "What is a puppctcer?" A person operating a puppet (tangible or
virtual) in real-time is palpably doing what puppeteers have always done: bu!
a person working at él keyboard with a virtual puppet--despite the fact that
one is controlling the movement of lhe puppet- does not seem to be cngaged
in the same activ ity, despite the faet thal the res ult (i.c., movement 01' the
figure) is the samc. This Icads us to a parad ox: lhe prospcct 01' pll ppct ry (or 01'
virtual puppel ry. al any ra le) wilhout rec<)gnizab k p ll r pctecrs . Computen,
have, one might sayo rrccd lhc pll ppet f'rom jl:-; dcpelHh: ncc on I,;onvcntional
ni
.\111 111 ' 1'1 11'1'1 I le y IN I\(i l (J J 1\11 ' 1)11\ J'JU IJ) U CJ'I() N
nll ppcl~C I :-' BIII ¡;c)llIplllcrs havL~ no!. ul' coursc, I'reed lhc puppel I'rum thc
nct:cssíty 01' hlllllan control 01' Orle sor! or another- o nly from the real-time
control oC the puppeteer.
Pursuant lo the li ne of reason ing I have been developing, it might now be
worthwhi\c to considcr the other kinds 01' media productio n mentioned near
the beginning 01' this essay: stop-action animation and anima tronics. Indeed ..
it will be best to begin with at least a brief consideration oí' a form of media
produetion I have noted onl 1' in passing: cel anim ation.
As we have seen , Kaplin 's implied definition 01' puppetry provides no
apparent grounds for excluding ccl animation from the realm oí' puppetry.
Does it have a place within my framework 01' tangible amI virtual puppet ry?
I suggest not, and make this suggestion without taking recourse to the criterion
01' real-time control. The principie behind the movement of cel-animatio n
figures is fundamentally ditTcrent from those of tangible and virtual puppets.
Cel-animation figures, owing to their nature as works of pain terly art. have
neither articulation points nor control mechanics of one sort or another. as
do both tangible and virtual puppets. In fact. their movemenl is not really
"controlled" at all. but is strictly an optical iIIusion: they do not "act" like
puppets, but Iike the drawings they are. Whi\e I would not hesitate to recog­
nize an affinity between cel animation and puppetry- especially since each
sites the signification 01' life in a place that is not Iife itse1f- 1 think that their
differences require them to be considered as different forms of art. The
figures of cel animation are obviously what I have te¡med media fi gures, since
without technological mediation they cannot "act" in the least; not all media
figures, however, need be thought of as puppets.
Turning now to stop-action figures, a brief glance at their history will
establish them as the chronologically earliest of media figures . J. SllIart
B1ack ton made use 01' them in a 1907 short, The l-Iaul1ted Hotel, and they had
an extended vogue in Russia , in the lllms of Ladislas Starevich as early as
1912 through Ptushko 's 1935 T/¡e New Gullil'er. They appeared in the 1933
c\assie King Kong and the Czech fi lm maker Jiri Trnka employed them to
great ctlect in a scries of films in the post- World War " era. They are also
long familiar. of course, in American te\evision , having been used for such
sta pIes as Gllmby and the Pillsbury Doughboy (Touchstone Pietures 1994:4).
Given their early history , it is interesting that Benjamin made no mention of
them-but if he had, hc would have had to reconsider his thesis that film can
only reproduce (and so, dislocate) works of art , for stop-action provides a
c1assic case of technology being used to crea te original productions.
The basic principIe 01' stop-action animation will be familiar to most
readers: A material object without any visible means of control is set in a
particular pose and shot wit h a single frame 01' film . The figure is then given a
minulely di fferent pose, t he fi lm is auvanced , an d anot her single (rame is
shot. And on amI 011 , until lhe l-in ishcJ sequence o f frames, when viewed at
. 'lJ'ojcc.:!l:d spccd. gives Ihc ill usio!1 Iha l the fig ure is mov ing ofits own accord,
\'h
 MI ~ II \ " "NI! 'l' I! I ' II Nu U II ,
while in ['ad , the lihu uoes no t aClually IccOI d .t ll~ I1hlVClllcnL per se, ~ )r the
figure . but o nly a scquellce 01' still posit io ns, Slop-uc tion figures hd o llg, I
suggest, to the new brccd 01' medi~ images beca use, uespitc the relalivcly old
tcchnology used in thcir creation , they are quite literally the ereation oftllat
technology. They a re not. that is, "mechanieal reproductions," for their
visible movement is not being rcproduced at all, hut proJuccd for tlle firs t
time through the medi um 01' fi lm.
Stop-action figures are material ohjects in preeisely the same sen se as
tangible puppets: the principies of their construction are identical to those
01' s uch puppets, involving the fabrication 01' a body tllat is imbued with a rl i­
c ulation points and given surface features, What differences exist in construc­
lion are of degree ratller than of kind . Most important ly. the stop-action
figure wiU usually he given more articula tion points than is common in
puppets: the centipede in James and lhe Gianl Peach (1996), the most complex
01' the figures used in the film , has 72 such points (Disney Studios 1996:8) ,
Two additional differences are also worth Iloting. First, a figure will freq uently
be given a set of interchangeable heads: the title character in James and lhe
Gialll Peach has 45 different heads, each of which has a particular hase
expression and set ofarticulation points (5). Second, a figure might be created
in multiple versions, to be used variously depending on the demands of the
sllot: 15 different figures were fabricated for eaeh of the se ven Icading char­
acters in .James amllhe Gial1l Peach (5). These characteristics 01' stop-action
figures-extra articulation , interchangeable parts , and multiple figures for
the same character--are not , however, required for the creation 01' stop­
action, and are really only c1aborations 01' practices that are available \Vith
tangible puppets. 11
Are stop-action figures puppets? The actual manipulation of such figures is
quite similar to that 01' tangible puppets, being nothing more or less than the
physical mo ving 01' various parts from one position to anothcr. The differ­
enee between stop-action figures and puppets, which is significant and invari­
able, is that by the very process oftheir animation, stop-aetion figures can not
be operated in real-time, or in anything close to it. In The N ighlmare Be{cJl'e
Chrisfmas, "a typical shot would take three days [to create] a nd end up lasting
about five seconds on the screen" (Touchstone Picturcs 1993:3). The man­
ipulation 01' a stop-action figure does not take place in front of the audience
(or of the film camera that is the stand-in ror th e audience), but is, quite
Iiterally, hidden away, taking place as it does between the individual framcs
01' film. What the audience sees , as it views a stop-aeti o n film, is not the
recordeu image of movem ent , but the ill usi o n of movement created t hrough
tlle recording.
Stop-action figures , l suggest, are p uppets lo the same degree as I.:o rn puter
graphics figures; that is , the y are c10scl y re la teu lo puppcl s as we have known
them exeept in o ne crucia l rega rd that <i rises rrom thc n.:wm;ss ortlle I1lcdill m
ür
in which Ihey exist. 11 was rela tivc ly easy lo d isl'll ll ll l t!J1.: iSS IK~ real-time
' 76
i\ U I (1 ' .' "1 I l ' l' 1, I J( Y I N" (¡ I 11 1, M ' 111 ¡\ r IU H >1 11
I 1 I 1) N
l'()nt llll wh,,'1l spl.:ak ill g 01' COlllplltcr g raphics figll rc~, sincc slIch figures \;an be
w nLru lbl eithcr il! real-time (e .g" thl()Ugh Illotion-capture) 01' not (e.g., rrom
tite ke yh(l<lrd) withollt any significant dirrerence in the f'igure's movement.
When speaking 01' stop-action figures , ho\Vever, it is not so casy to overlook
the matter, since the absence of even the possibility 01' real-time control is the
dcfining characte ristic 01' these figures. It will be more useful, ho\Vever, to
think 01' the difTerence not in terms of real-time, per se, but rather in terms ol'
the tangibility (or la ck thereor) of the movement given to puppets and stup­
action figures: one sees a puppet actually move, but all o ne can see \Vith a
stop-action figure is the effect of its movement.
J llst as 1 have proposed distinguishing between the tangible and the virtual
puppet on the basis of what 1 take to be the only signjficant differe nce
presented by the latter (i.e., its lack ofmater.ial tangibility, which is a runction
of its medium), so l no\V propose to distinguish between the tangi ble and the
stop-action puppet on th e basis 01' the only significant diffcrence that ex ists
between them: the stop-action puppet's mediated illusion of movemenL 1 am
suggesting, that is, that wc thin k in terms ofa third category: tangible puppets
(i.e. , tangible objects that are langibly moved ), virtual puppets (,i .e" intan g­
ible objects that are tangibly mo ved) , a nu stop-action puppets (i .e. , tangible
objects that are intangi bly moved) . As with Ihe disti nction dra wn hetwecn
tangible a nd virtual puppets, 1 hope the distinction l no\V tI ra w bctweell tang­
ible and stop-action puppets will be strong cno ug h lO mo ll iry Ihe trad iti o n­
alists who want to emphasize lhe uniq ueness 01' puppe ls as we have know n
them , but will also eneourage the reeognit..io n ofthc hasic similarit ie-s h \.:IWCCIl
the t\Vo kinds of fi g ures.
It remains to offer a few words on a nimatr on ic fi g ures, a su bjecl on wh ich
l can be relatively brief. Ánimatronic figures, by which terll1 is mcant fi g ures
whose control is hased on electronics transmitted through wire and/or raJ io
signals, are tan gible puppets, as a rule, having both matcr,ial and Illovcmenl
tangibility . The fact of their electronically based control renders them a dis­
tinct type oftangible puppet (along \Vith other types such as hand puppet, rod
puppeL etc.), but this is a minor matter compared to tlle differences th a t exist
between tangible, virtuaL and stop-action puppets. It is worth observing tllat
animatronic puppets differ from ma ny other tangible puppets in successf~ully
obscuring their contro l mechanics and in attaining an exceptional degree
01' verisimilitude -they generally do not "'Iook " like puppets--- but these are
differences 01' degree and not 01' kind. It is also worth observing that anima­
tronic puppets might be controlled either through the eomputer keyboard or
motion-capture (01' both together, sometimcs supplemented hy more tradi­
tional mean s as \Vell , such as strings and rods), but that in either case their
lllovemen t is ta ngible, so that one need not be concerned with the red hcrring
01' real-time control.
Thcre are sumé animatronic fi g ures, however, that need 10 be diffcrenti ­
a led rro lll rH1ppl,'tS: thcsc fi gu res are alllolll Ula, such as lhe aforemcntio ned
ro
lJlI,II,ll 'I,'IN lu b t' ItHllld ut Dlsm;yland, 111 IIn di .III'IÚ\l h ly rall\.:lll l ~ L'IC;lIUI I.!~
1\ ,", I,l hli slllne lll s ~ \II.:h as I he C hud l. . { 'hce!',l' l'I I/L' fl lIS. Thc disling llishing
, 11I1I,1~'l n i ~ li c ~1 rlhl~ alllolllaton is that its rn OVClllell1 jlossibilities a re " dused ."
\Vilh pIl PJ'l(;tS 01' all kinds - - even those with a li rni tcd rangc 01' possiblc
11 111 VI.; 11 Icnt :-;
thc naturc ami duration oreac.h movement is open to the con trol
111 lite npcrator, whcther the operator sits at a eomputer, wears a Wald o, 01'
:;l!lIats behind a playboard . With an automaton , ho wever, lhe program 01'
l1\oVClllcnts, once laid down either e1cctronically or meehanically. is invari­
ahle: tirst it wi ll nod its head, let us say, then wave a hand, then rise in
g l'l,.:cting, and so on. The automaton's program might indeed be alte red , but it
Ihen would have oruy a new invariable programo The difference between
puppets and automata is not the function of él ne w medium of preseutation ,
as are the differences presented by virtual and stop-action puppets; thus, a
distinction should be maintained between the automaton and all categories
01' puppet, with an automaton (whether eontrolled thro ugh animatronics or
mechanics) being eonsidered a kind of kinetic sCllI'pture.
Tangible puppets, virtual puppets, stop-action p uppets (and the use o f
animatronic controls for any or all of them as weH): What, finaily, is one to
think 01' thc art 01' puppetry in thc agc 01' media production'! Back in the age
ofmcchanical reproduction , Walter Benjamin's thoughts seem to have verged
on the apocalyptic: he condueles his essay with the strong imp'l ication that
mechanical rcproduction is associated with fascism, and thus with \Var ([193 3J
1969:241 - 42). Whilc I am ccrtain that media production is él function of, ancl
an influencc upon, contemporary society, I hesitate to draw any profoumJ
conclusions from its devclopment. Ratller, I think it has deveLoped simply
beca use its development was possible: artists saw some possibilities in the
new media and rushed to take advantage of them , just as they have alwa ys
done when presented with new possibilities.
Traditionalists such as Mark Levenson (at least in his formal role \Vith
UNIMi\-USi\) seem to fear for tangible puppetry in the faee of the various
kinds of media puppets, and so seek to maintain a sphere of exclusivity for
it. Visionaries sueh as Stephen Kaplin are more sanguine. The new form s
01' puppctry, writes Ka plin , \Viii not mean " death of traditional [forms o f)
puppetry," but will probably lead thcm to be "preserved for their historie,
spiritual or folklorie value, like endangered species on a game preserve"
(1994:39). Such preservation does not seem to me like a terribly happy fa te:
but neither does it seemlikcly. One is hard pressed to name three trad itions of
puppetry that have successfully been "preserved" after their audience ha);
deserted them. 12
In fact, however, I do not think that media puppetry spells the end 01'
pllppetry as we have known il. There is a pleasure stilllo be fOlln d in lhe live
performance ora tangible puppet- the direct con frOntaLi o n betwecl1 <l n a udi­
encc and a "living" o~iect-that is d istind rrom Ihl! parlicltlH r pJeasures
01' med ia pllppctS. I lo n::see a l'ut ure in whicll 1:l lIgi ll k: puprcts tlncl media
171\
\7')
p Llf'lp¡: IS ~': 1I 1 lOl'\lkl eadl slilll ll blill/' alld ch a ll \.: lI bd ng Ihl' ()1!a \.:1. My v il
lu.\ll lamlcl ís 1101 ilsdf nI' natlln.:; Ilci th\!r, in ils llWIl W;J y. would be a stop­
adion 1lall de l. But both,jllst lik.c a ma rioneltc Ila mlet o r, lór that maller, a
living I lamld , serve the salllc esscntial runction (albeit by differing ll1eans):
not so mueh the holding up of a mirror to nature as the opening up 01' a
\Vindow fOl" human artistry.
Notes
I crcated this figure using a computer graphics program callcd Caligari truSpace:
see <http://ww w.caligari.coml>. wh ere a demonstration version of the program is
available as of this writing. A series of powerful computer graphics prograllls arc
,liso sold b y A lias I Wavefront. 1\1y discussion of computer graphics below has
been grcatly informed by the literature, available on the Web, put out by these t\Vo
companies, as \Vell as by Web litcratu re from Silicon Graphics, Ine.
2 See l11y "The Actor Occluded: Puppet Thcatrc and t\cling Thcory" (Tillis 1996)
for a discussion of signifieation siting.
3 Sce, for example, Weissberg (1996).
4 Although I speak of the model as being "three-dimensional," il should be under­
stood that I refer to three dilllensiolls within virtual , nol real , spa\.:e: tbe computer
screen image of the model has, litcrally, only two dim ensions.
5 By "gesturalmovement" I mean all movements that pertain to the "body" of the
figure , frolll gross rillovelllcnts such as walking and jUlllping up and down to
exceedingly fine movelllents such as the twitching 01' a muscle.
6 It mighl be noted that <Inother approach to creating gestllfal moVClllcnt rrolll the
keyboa rd involves defining ccrtain closely rel ated poses rather th a.n actual move­
ments. Using a sha pe-shifting progralll (such as the ones that arc uscd for " lllorph­
ing" onc person's faee into another's), these poses are then blcnded togethcr in
sequenee to crcatc the lllovement.
7 It is, perhaps, not surprising that a tension exists between practitioncrs of
keyboard-generated movement and lhose \Vho work with motion capture. R ichard
Cray, in a personal corrcspondence (1997), ~Titcs that Stcph Greenberg, of Walt
Disney Productions, has referred to motion capture as "Satan's Rotoseope."
8 Among the peop1c (and eompanies) instrumental in developing performance
animation , in addition to Silicon Graphics, are Brad deGraf (PrOlozoa), Michael
Wharman and Chris Walker (M r. Film/Modern Cartoons), David Stunnan (Media
Lab), and Mikc Fusco (Simgra p hies). Richard Cray's website for the Performance
Animation Society (www.PASociety.org) has pcrhaps lhe fullest set 01' web-Iinks
available on the subject of performance allilllation.
9 I should al least note a pair of possible arguments concerning tangibility. It might
be argued that computer graphics figures are not just like, but are the same as,
shadow puppets- both being images on a screel1· and that thercfore there a re no
grounds for distillguishing al all between such figures and puppets. l3ut con/ra this
a rgument, while the shadows in shadow puppetry are indeed only images, the
puppets in shadow puppetry are not the shadow images thernselves. but lhe tang­
ible puppets- the material entities- lhat are the direct referents of the shadows.
Als o , it might be arglled that computer graphics are just likc tangible puppets
after all, sincc they are predicatcd 011 thc tangibility of the computer screen or the
projector screen. But cOI1/m this argu lllent, Ile ither of these screells is actua lly the
cQmputer graphics figure; th ey me o nly lhe ta ngible surfaces by which th e p uppet
whi d l ilSi:l\" has ol1ly a virtual "cx istolH;¡;" as a t:ol11puter code---is made visible.
 M I IlI" 1\ N I j '1'1; i:' 11 N í " . j II ¡ ,

lO The lu igi ll ,, ("a real -tilllccri tl:ri(llllm pl lPlw tl y """ hl l. l" ha vc llrigill: lh:d ill ;¡ d (,,'~ ir,·
lo distinguish bC IWt'Cn puppel!; Ulld aullllllalil. ScC' "do\\! rol' a di s(;u ~s i"lI (Ir Ihi s
issue. 88

11 The o verall effed 01' these distilletive a, peets uf I~lbrieali()n U. 10 all o w Ihe ~I() p .
aetio n figure a far more detailed level 01' mov emc ll l Ih a n is typical 1'0 1' even tite,;
mosl arlieulated marionette. One Illight note, howeve r, that 1'01' '111 o rlhe po¡;sihil­ T HE SC R EEN TEST

nuanee 01' ils movelllent, Ihe stop-aetion figure will slill laek lhe a rt ieulat io n 01'"
well-designcd computer graphies figure: Woody, in To)' SIOI'y, has a rClllarkablc OF T H E DOUBLE

7 12 avars (Pixar/Disney Pieturcs 1995:8).

12 Co nsider the fate o fth e karagot. shadow Ih ea trc , t'o r exalllplc.. des pilc lhe cultural
preservat io n efforts 01' the Tllrki sh governmenl.
The uncanny perforrner in the space of technology

Rc(erences Ma tthew Causey

Al ias I WaveJront, lne. 1997. < hltp://w\\!w. aw.sgi.eolll>.

Ande rson , Pa ul 1997. "Audio-A nilllatronies 1O1," < http://www.sgi.coml>.

Sllurcc: T/¡e(llre .louma/ 51(4) (1999): 383 394.

Benjamin , W alter 1969 [1933] . "The Work 01' Art in the Age of M echanieal Rcproduc­
lion." In f!Iulllinotiol'/.\", translaled by 11. Z ohn, 217 - 51. New Y ork: Schoeken Boo ks.
Burton, T im 1993. Tlle Ni~hlmare Before Chrisl/llas. Touehstone Pietures.
Caligari, Ine. 1997. "On- Line Help ror Caligari truSpaee." < http://www.caJigari.col11 1>.
Charaeler Shop, Ine. , The 1997. <http://w ww .eharaeter-shop.eom/> .
Cray, Richard 1997. Pe rsona l eorresponde nee wilh author. 8 September.
Disney Studios 1996. " James a/1(1 Ihe GiW!l Peach. " The Pl/ppelry .louma/47, 4: 4 -6.
Duncan, Jo d y 1997. " On lhe Shoulders o fGianls." Ci/lelex 70: 72-109.
Kaplin, Slephen 1994. " Puppetry into Ihe Next MiI1e nni um. " Puppell'y II1/('rnol;onal
1: 37-39.
Lassiter, John 1995. Toy Slory. Walt Disney Pietures.
Levenson , Mark 1992. " Memorandum re: Puppetry in Other M ed ia. " U npublished
paper presenled to Ih e Futurism Conferenee, San Luis Obispo, CA , 15 May.
Luskin , J onat han 1997. " Protozoa and the FlIlure 01' Performanc'C Animation"
Innova/ion, SUlllmer: 48,-51.
Pixar/Walt Disney Pietures 1995. "'[he Toy Story." Th e Puppelry Jounza/47, 2: 6 - 8.
Po lhemus, Ine. 1997. < http://,,,,ww.polhe mus.eom/>.
Pourroy, Janine 1997. "Basie Blaek. " Cinelex 70: 15 - 44, 155, 166.
Seliek , Henry 1996. .Ial11C's 0/1(1 lite Gianl Pe(/c/¡. Walt Disney Piel Uf cs.
Siheo n Gra p hies, lne. 1997 . <http:www.sgi.eoml>.
Sonnenfeld , Barry 1997. Atel/ il1 Block. Alllblin En tertainment. Ine.
Spielberg, Slephen 1997. Tll e Losl ~Yo rld: .lurrasic Park . Amblin Entertainment. Ine.
Tillis, Steve 1996. "The A cto r O cc1l1ded: PlIppet Theatre and ACling Theory." Th ealr('
Topics 6, 2: 109- 19.
Touehstone Pietures 1994. "Stop-Molion Animation-Then and Now ." The PUjJ­
pelr)' .Io/lfIllI/45 , 3: 4 -- 6.
- - 1993 . " The Ni~hlmare Belore C!trisllIlas." The PUjJjJelry .!oumal 45, 2: 2- 4.
Weissberg, Jed 1996. " The Art 01' PlIppelry in lhe Age 01' Digital Manipulation.· ·
Puppelry Il1l erl/aliolla/2: 39- 40.
Your rcality is atready half video hallueination . Soon it will
becolllc tOlal hallueination. You ' re going to ha ve lo 1ca rn to
I,ive in á ver)' strange, new world.
Dr. Brian Oblivion, Videodrol/1e l
And ir 1 am anything in the picture, il is al\\'ays in the form 01'
lh e se reen , wh ich 1 ear1ier ealled the stain . the spo!.'
Question regarding thc virtual and the real
There is nothing in cyberspal:e and the screened technologies of the virtual
that has not been already performed on the stage. The theatre has always
been virtual , a space ofillusory immediacy.' Yet the contemporary discourse
surrounding Iive performance and technological reproducti on cstablishes an
essentialized difference between the phenomena. The difference is furth er
com:retized in the critical writings 01' theatre and performance studies that
ignore such pcrformative mediatcd forms as film, television, radio, and mul­
timedia. Slavoj Zizek, in the introduction to Mapping Ideo{ogy, writes that it
is a commonplace assumption that "virtual or cyber-sex presents a radical
break with the past since in it actual sexual contact ,vith a real other
is losing ground against masturbatory enjoyment, whose sole support is the
virtual other." He dismisses that assumption by suggesting that "Lacan's
thesis that there is no sexual relationship mean s precisely that tha structure of
the real sexual act (of the act with a ftesh and blood partncr) is already
inherently phantasmic- the real body 01' the other serves only as a support
ror our phantasmic projeclions. "4 Laca n's argument thus challenges the as­
su mptio ns inhcrent in the construded bini:lry of the Iive and thc virtual, and
1hcrcby Jisp ll f ill g f h e daims of imml!diacy lI nd p re:;ence in Iive perrormancc.
5

1RO
\/·;1
 ~I I I J(" i\N" ILI ' IINI1 I . I I( ¡\
Bul il wOllld he a 111istake lu im agin!.: fll!rI wll.1I W\: ¡';XJ'lC I il' tll,;I,: ill 1 1t ~ IIIca tl!'
ami recorded media is the sa me cXp¡;ric llc,;c. 1I is Iln: sa IlH.!. ulll y di I'kTCII l.
The debate regarding the ontol ogy oC pérf'olm rm cc íl nd the nal urc ¡)r
liveness has been well rehearsed. 6 Peggy Phd an argues that pe rfo rm a nce 1"
defined through its non-reproduci bi lity. Thc IUlture of perfo rmance dctt: ri nr­
ates as it is enfolded in teeh nological reproducti on , Phil ip Ausla nder co unte n;
tha l the live is an artifaet of reeording media, Liveness exists 110t as a priO I
eondition , but as a result o fm ediatization, Ye t both a rg uments are problem ­
atic . Phelan disregards any effect of tech no logy on pe rfo rm a nce and d raws a
non-nego tiable, essentialist border between the tw o media. A uslander draws
out a sop hi sticated legal argument whose d ynamic materialism o verl ooks
the most material manner o f ma rking the live, namely death. Disputing lhe
argument of Phelan and a mending Auslander 's 1suggest tha t the ontology 01'
performance (li veness), wh ich exists before and after mediatiza tion, ha s been
altered within the space 01' technology. Hu t, how?
Question regarding performance and mediatized cultur e
Three basic argllments comprise the contemporary theory 01' subjccl con­
struction in mediaÜzed culture' and help shape the aesthetic gestures of
contemporary performance:
l. The material body and its subjectivity is extended , chal1enged , and recOfl ­
figllred through technology.
2. The te1evisual is the primary modality of contemporary technological
representation dominating manners 01' thought and communica tion.
cultural and subject constrllction .
3. There exists an unavoidable convergence of the human and maehi n\::
wherein the "slave" machine dominates the " master" human subjcct.
The performance work of the c1assical post.modernist Woo ster Grour
(us), The Desperate Optimists, an expatriate Irish compan)' working in Ihe
UK (Irc1and/uK), the altered medical body of O rlan (France) , the obsoletc
body 01' Stelarc (Australia), and the post-colonial cyber-performance aTtists
Guillermo Gómez-Peña and Roberto Sifuentes (Chica no-American) are al1
in the process 01' embodying mediated subjectivity and articulating, rep reso
enting that experience in performance. The developing art forms o f wcb­
based performance, interactive installations, aud virtual enviro ll ments .Irl'
extending the boundaries 01' the theatre and our notions of wha t consti tu tcs a
performance. How do we understand the processes of pe rfo rmance which
converge \Vith mediated technologies 01' representation and represen l am.l
enact m ediated su bjectivity?
I wa nt he re to answe r my two questioll s by iJ:i()la ting iI cri tical l11 0rncnt in
new m ed ia pe rformance wOrks spccifk ally "nd ~I i ril ; " c ltlllIrc in genera l.
'H "
,"I .,11( l lI,l N
J • 11i ~ 1 1.1 1 "' 1111 11I 1 1J 1I1 t
whCll lltc Pll·... l·lIl\· 111 Ihe f),'lIhlc: i ~ pl \:"~' llh:d 1" llIlIi,. l l l l1l;dill l~d d ll fll llCu l ll ll l.
II! \: c;impk 1IIIllllCIII when a livl.! ild ~)f ~P II11 \l111 ~ hCI Illl.:di¡¡h:d ollI i.: 1 th nll lg h
tire tcchllologics 1I1' rq)I'oducti(.)Tl. I will ~u ~¡.!l.!s t Ihal lhe I.!XpCriCIlL'l· (JI' (he se ll
as otller in the spacc 01' 'l cch no logy can hl.: rl.!ud as un um:unny cx pc ricllcc. a
making material of split subjectivity . W hal l wil1 arg uc is that Lhc inclllsi oll uf
lile tclevisual screcn in performa nce, a nd the practil.:e 01' perfo rmance in (h l:
screened world o l' virtual environments, con sli tlltes the staging 01' the p riv­
ilcged object of the split subject, that which assisls in lhe subject's divisio n,
ca pturing lhe gaze, enacting the subject 's annihilation , its noth ingness, wh ile
presenting the unpresentable approac'h of the real through lhe televisual
screens. Part psychoanalytic reading (Fmud and Laean), part textual anal ysis
(Beckett and Genet) , part film sludies (Lynch and Weir), this paper focuses
on the material object wherein and upon which these performa nce phenom­
ena take place, both in the nowhere of the psyche and the li ved space of the
s
body: the screens. The goal of this tripartite strategy is to demonstrate how
questions of virtuality and the real are being played out in both live and
mediated perfo rma tive work and across a variety of historical contexts. The
critical issues of li ve performance are converging with the critical issues of
mediatized culture and each is informing the other.
At the tone, please leave a message
Avital Ronel1 , in The Telephone Boo!e writes of IF reud's notion 01' unheimlich ,
or the uncanny, and how this phenomenon recurs through the subject's
experience of displacement within technology. She remarks that "the more
dreadflllly disquieting tlling is not the other or alil alien: it is, rathcr, yourself
in oldest familiarity with the other, for example, it could be the Double in
which you recognize yourself outside of yourself."9 The confrontation with
the DOllble, the recognition 01' yourself outside of yourself through the echo­
ing voiee on Ihe telephone, the anamorphic projection on the telcvision in
freeze-frame, slow-motion , fast forward , and reversc, through " a kind 01' ''
being in cyberspaee \Vith morphing identities that exist within the fragility
of the digital hypertext, prescnt the teehnologically triggered uncanniness of
contemporary subjectivity. The experience 01' the uncanny within the space
of technology seems easily constructed. The first time your computer screen
displays a message, a q uestion " how a re you?" from an a nonym o us chatroom
participant, the experience is palpable. Who is it behind the text, on the other
side of the screen? It is whol1lever 1 want. The pulsating cursor, like a heart
beat, anticipates the streaming text that foll o ws, unencumbered by the ap­
pearance of the body , offering a flat screen ideally suited to project our own
desires, our desiring phantasms. The audio samp1ing 01' our voices (" al the
tone, please ¡ca ve a message" ), the black a nd white su rwil1a nce vid eo capt ures
of our irnages ("is that h o w 1 lo ok in line at the ba nk?") are now common­
p]¡lI..'e. bu t some how unscUling. WhV" In llttt!mpr illg lo l1ul li nc an aesl hctic 0 1"
,.. ,
1 ;'") )
 MIIIJI/\ /\NU II J I ' IINII L lH,\
the um;an ny "rc lld notcl! scvcrallikrill y C\lIlll l'k~ I hal Wllllld t.:Iidt . 111 C\I1Cri­
ence of the Llnca nny. Freud wri tes. " t hi s 1I 11C..1I111 Y is ill rea lily lIoth ing ncw
or alien, but something which is familiar ami okl-eslablished in the mi nd alld
which has become alienated from it only through lh e process ofrepressio n." ltI
The ego does not believe in the possibilüy of its death. The uncon scious th inks
it is immortal. The uncanny experience ofthe double is Death made m aterial .
Unavoidable. Present. Screcned.
Thc screens ofmediated tcchnologies, now ubiquitous in live performance,
like the dolls. mirrors and automatons which F reud suggests bring fort h
experience, construet the space wherein we double ourselves and perform él
witnessing of oursclves as other. The uncanniness 01' mediatized culture is a
technological uncannincss. David Lynch's TlI'in Peaks: Fire Walk ¡vil/¡ Me.
the feature prequcl to the television series, works through these issues of
technological uneanniness. It is February the sixtcenth at 10:10 A . M . when
Speeial Agent Dale Cooper enters the office of I'IlI Regional Director G ordon
Coleo The establishing shot of the FJl1 Building begins with an upside-down
shadow ofthe Liberty Bell panning up to the actual Bell, which is then echoed
in a print 01' the Bell in Gordon's office. " 1 was worried about today because
ofthe dream I told you about," Cooper confides, kneeling at Gordon's desk.
Gordon nods. Cut to: an empty office hallway with a single surveillance
camera hung from the ceiling pointing away from the viewer. Special Age nt
Cooper enters the frame, stands in front ofthe surveillance camera and waits.
Cut to: Close-up of the surveillance monitor with Cooper looking. Cut to:
Medium shot of the hallway as Cooper walks out. Cut to: Medium shot of
surveillance control room where a security guard watches three video mon­
itors. The middle monitor displays Cooper just exiting the ha\lway as he
enters the frame ofthe film and into the control room. He studies the monitor.
Nothing. He repe.ats the sequence. Still , nothing on the monitor. The editing
works to unsettle the eye between monitored video space and the real filmic
space. An elevator door opens. Pause. Philip Jeffries, a long ,Iost federal agen l
walks up the hallway toward Cooper, who is again looking into the survei l­
lance camera . Cooper walks back in the control room and is astonished to see
himself on the live monitor and that Jeffries is walking past his image. I-Ie
calls out anxiously , " Gordon! Gordon! " Seeing himself see himself creates él
startling chain of events. Jeffries, now in Gordon 's office, speaks in a haltin g
voice about an L1nknown Judy. The video noise orthe dead TV ehannel , which
later proves to be the sighting of the father as killer, fades in and out, su per­
imposed upon the scenes. It is through the technological that \Ve enteT lhe
dream space of T win Peaks with its patented reverse speak. When Jeffrics
vanishes it is as ir he does so along the electrical wires ami through videa ted
spaee as quick inserts of cabling and telephone poles are flashed. Th e fro nl
desk of FIJI headq uarters sa ys Lhat Jeffries wa:; ne....er therc. Cole a nd Coopcr
confirm Jeffries presen ce and Coo per's vis ual JCHlbling by revi ewin g lile
video. The video is ¡he only evide nce 01' prc:;cll\:e. 1101 1I r1l ikc lhe dlanl lhal
1)< 1
J IJl J :.c I( I ' I , N I -IIS I PI I IJ I~ IJ( Ill llTl
\wnl ¡lul JIII Íli!' lllally protl'st marc hes cOllcerni ng lile l{oJ ncy K illg vCl'dict.
"Ihe vid¡:tl d llCsn ' t lie. lhe video doesn ' t lie!" The uncanny and vidcatcd
douhling nI' ( 'ooper is lhe signal. the crisis point, wherein the dream space of
fraglllentation via technology invades the real space.
The issues of televisual a nd simulated culture are now commonplace
Hollywood script fodder, depicting either the anxiety or desire that my life is,
or should be, ¡v. The Truman Show and Edlv ll are recent examples. Both fill1ls
offer a Ba udrillard for Dummies. a PirandelJo for those who missed 11l0dern­
ism, th ro ugh a dramatization of the theory of simulations. Plea.\"(/I1I"ille I 2 is
a film whose twisted ideology narrates an attempted reconstruction of the
televisual as f1esh through a slow process of colorization. 1f \Ve are tra pped in
the television , if our world has beco me televisual, then why not make the
television our reality? Tho designing of simulated wars for political gain is
played out in Wag ¡he Dog,I J eerily reflecting what many thought was the
cynicism that lay behind Cl inton's militarism in 1998-99. Why this ubiquity
of challenges and confrontation 01' the real and the te\evisual , the organic and
technological in popular culture'! The use of the technology of the screcn in
these films is telling. There is always a person behind the curtain , behind the
sereen or two-way mirror who can be isolated as the cause of the mediated
invasion. The Director in The human ShOlV, the TV repairman in Pleason(ville,
the media specialist in Wag [he f)vg, are the "men " behind the curtain. This
recurring narrative device 01' a motivating cal1se that can be revealed rrol1l
behind the screen is a distinctly modern notion. Zi zek, in an analysis 01'
l1lediated technologies , writes that "modernist technology is 'transparent' in
the sense of reta ,i ning the illusion of an insight into 'how the mach ine works· ;
that is to say, the screen ofthe interface was supposed to allow the user direct
access to the machinc behind the screen." He goes on to suggest that post­
modern technologies deliver quite the oppositc with an " interface screen [that]
is supposed to conceal the workings orthe machine. " The problem is that "the
user becomes ' accustomed to opaque technology' -the digital machinery
'behind the screen' retreats into total impenetrability, even invisibility. " 14 The
growing opacity 01' the mediated screens require 01' the user a certain trust.
The ideology 01' capitalism operates in this manner looking to obscure under­
standing as to " how things work" while encouraging acquiescence to "things
as they are." The television reqLlests that we please stand by, and some do.
Notbing to do with representation'?
Ir theatre , performance, film and ne\\' media studies seem to share similar
concerns and aesthetic gesturcs rcgarding the collapse ofthe real into the virtual
and the constrllction 01' identity in the space 01' technology, are there common
t.liscoun;es to undcrstand these p ro blems? Lacan 's wri tings o n the scopic
drive a nd modero drama's work in g throllgh 01' the reality versus illusi on
qlll~ s li on :t I C Iwo l110dcb I will pll l lúrlh .
\H'i
 1\111'1,' ,'1'11' 11 t 11 ., 1-,
The lTla lería lisl el il i4 ue nI' Laca lIialt alld I I\; IIl h .1I1 I ~'iyc hua Ila l}! ic pa rildigl ll~
in fil m ::;l uJie~ asserls tbal many nI' 1he I1lOtkls (11 il'i di'iUlll rse are lola Ii/.i ll g.
idealistie and ahistorieal, relying 011 sexual d ilferencc lo artieulalc its IheOl)' é11
the expense 01' raee and dass differcnliations. 15 Nonetheless, performance the­
orists continue to mine Laean 's oeuvre to help cx plicate lhe fic ld and several
notions eoneerning the sereen and the seopie drive from Lacan's Semimlr XI
will help focus my argument. 1ó 1try here to employ these works not asaulhor­
itarian truth but as metaphors , or even "as if" they are dramatic texts, not lO
extend the psyehoanalytie discourse, but to tease out structures 0 1' subject con­
struction in mediatized culture that reflect upon contemporary thea lre practice.
The imaginary play ("The Scopic Ori ve ") which 1 construct from Lacan's
texts regarding the drama ofthe self and subjectivity plots a division between
the gaze 1í and the subject 01' representation, the gaze and th e eye, the subjtct
a nd the other. The mediators between the two sets are the image and the screen.
T he action of the plot follows two paths. The Arst concerns how the subject
doub1es itself as a result of the nature of being, being split l8 and the fasci na·
tion that grows for the determining factor in that divi sion. Lacan \.. .Tites, "the
interest the subject takes in his own split is bound up with that which deter­
mines it- namely, a privileged object, which has emerged from some primal
separation, from some self-mutilation induced by the very approach of the
real. "l~ The deterlllining factor of split subjectivity in mediatized culture is
rightly sensed as technology . The televisual screen is that privileged object
that emerges from th e separation of the se1f, but is also the technology of tbe
self-mutilation revealing the appearance of the double as the approach of lhe
real. The question ofthe drama is not one ofrepresentation, ofthe thing and
its reflection , but of the splitting 01' subjectivity.
The second story of the plot concerns the nature of the screen and its
manipulations at the hands of the subject: "Only the subject- the hum an
subject , the subject 01' the desire that is the essence 01' man---is not, unlike tb e
animal. entirely caught up in this imaginary capture. He maps himse1f in it.
How? In so far as he isolates the function of the screen and plays with it.
Man , in effeet, knows how to play with the mask as that beyond which there
is the gaze. The screen is here the locus 01' Illediation. " 20 The screens are isolated ,
played with , a nd materialize as pictures to map visions of ourselves. T he
screens are the technologies used to reconfigure ourselves and to see ourselves
as what we are: pictures, screens. Orlan's recent works in digital photography
and facial reconstruction resonate here. 21 The manipulations of the screens
are manipulations of our subjectivity, whether \ve are in control or no1. T be
mediated screens in live performance are both the opaque border of th e
representable object trapping the gaze 01' the perceivin g subject befo re it
apprehends the object and the sitc wherein and upon which the s ubject places
its phan l.asm ic projections whiJe seeing itself see itself. The lclcvisual screcn
determines the split 01' lhe subject an d becomes lile lrap for the gaze 01' Lhc
subjecl app rehendi ng its d oubli ng.
1X(1
---~', · nr -,-.. I~ "" 1'" " ..' .-.-. '" ~ I P ' 1-' '''-' 1''-"
II IIW d(llll lll l' III I'0LIIY Ihealn: II ll tl pcrrurllwnce arlisls :.tuge lhis drallla ?
Pt.: rl OrlllcrS J p pCUI II vc JIHI vid eatcd silllultall\::o usly. O nc image in lhe pro·
\.'I.!SS ol'living, bcing-ulIlo-dealh, onc ¡muge hc1d in uhcyance. virtually prcscnt.
I'hl~ dDubling occurs when Ron Va wter crea tes a lip sym; to his own visage on
Ihe video Illon itors and takes on the voices for all the "g uests" on a recrcation
111'" nude talk show in a type oftechnological-ventriloq uist act in the Wooster
( irnup 's" Frank Dell's Last Temptation ofSt. Anthony.'>12 The videated inter­
vicwces from the Oesperate Optimist's deconstruction of Synge's Playboy
1If' Ihe Weslern World in which ind ivid uals Are gU11s 011 video which have
"rcal" stage effects of exploding blood bags on the actors creates a uni fied
lic1d 01' the televisual and the stage. W hen O rlan's pe rrormative surgeries a re
video-conferenced to galleries across the globe, or Stelarc's body is offered up
ror manipul<ltions from keyboards throughout cyberspace, the body of the
performer is extended, challenged , and reconAgured through technology .
When GÓmez· Peña prepares hü; website for racist and misogynist eonfes­
sions, he foregrounds the internet's inherent colonial structures and ethos of
anonymity thal promotes a disturbing honcsty.
Where does the site of these sightings of the Double take place? On screens.
"fhe technological screens 01' television. computer, and film. The biological
screens ofbody and flesh. The phantasmic screens ofpcrception. Lacan 's well­
known diagram of the scopic fie1d maps the subjcct 01' representation anJ lhe
gaze, as picturing one a nother through irnage and screen. The J iagra m reaJs
the scopic Aeld phenornenologically . The ga7.e is outside, so thcrcl'orc. "1 HII1
looked at ... I am a piclure. "23 The scrcens wherein wc see ou rsel vcs sccing
oursel ves are not transparent, but opaque. The subject does no! apprehcn J
the object, whcther that object is the other ofher OWll subjcCli vily n I' t11e oth cr
of worldly objects. but her own phanlasmic projecti on s 011 lhe represen la­
tional screen.
Videated subjects maintain a unique privilege in mediatized culture. Rock
concerts are routinely supplementcd by video projeetiom. which become the
evidence of él live act. In stadium concerts the "jumbotron " video screens are
lhe manner in which audience members access the liveness. The competition
between li ve performer and mediated representation ofthat performer 1'01' the
perception of the spectator cnds up as a draw at best since the mediated
subject is that "which has emerged from some primal separation, from sorne
sc1f. mutilation induced by the very approach of the real. "24 Ooes that mean
that it is the split video image sourcing from a live feed that reestablishes the
status 01' the real? Yeso the video image is more real than the live actor.
The aesthetics of the combination 01' video and live images is a visual
Illctaphor of split subjectivity. Lacan discusses this point in his lecture on
anamorphosis. Anamorphosis , like perspective, is a mathematically derived
Ji stortion of an image that can be reconstructed with cylindrical reflection.
"fhe imugc is replicated. dislo rted and restored. lI ans Holbein's paintin g,
"The J\l11hassad or~ . " is lhc best k nown example 01' a n a na mo rphic image and
'H'J
 ~ II'PI " ANII I(I " I I N III .IIG \
1.<Iean l1l ah:s mueh lIr lhl' lúrm. 1k 1I 1l\ lles Ih;1\ I h~ ima g,c in I llllbc ill 's
painling is llnseen ulltil onc bcgins lO walk awu)' , I!I nol hhlk al il. ThclI lhe
painting " makes visible for us here somel hi llg Ihul is simply lhe sllbjecl as
annihilated." 25 W hat is seen in the distorted dou bJing is lh e negatiol1 01' lhe
solidified subject. The televisual image is, too, anamorphic: it replica tc~.
distorls and resto res. Tt traps the gaze. Jt shows our n othingness . Yel. lh is is
not the site of pure negati vity, as the lechnologica l uncanny triggers Ihe
visitation of the other (in the guise of death) b ut is the ground upon where we
dance the doub1e in a renewal of being beyo nd the egocentered and solidi fted
subjed: " It is throllgh this sepa rated form of himself that the bcing comes
into play in his effects of life a nd death, and it might be said that il is with
the help 01' this doubling of the other 01' of oneself. that is reali;!;ed, lhe con­
jUDction from which proceeds the renewal 01' bei.ng in rerroduetion. " "6 T he
dOllbling teehnologies of mediation act as a sparagmos, fragmcnting the
subject, displaying its fabrication , and remembering what is other.
.. . Between the screen and the thing screcned off
At this point in the text I gladly forgo the social science discollrse I have
borrowed and move to the more problema tic, jumpy texts of the theatre. 1
turn to Samuel Beckett's Film and Jea n Cenet's The Screens to build my argu­
ment regarding postmodern digital culture and the doubling technology of
the screen . Is there an irony in llsing modernism to articulate postmodernism,
or a testament to the fact that the theoretical borders between modern an d
postmodern are riddled with gaps'? My assertions on performance in digital
culture through a discussion of film. theatrical modernism. and psyeho­
analysis is. in the end , an attempt to widen those ga ps.
Beckott cites Berkeley in his opening to Film: "Esse esl pereipi," to be is to
be perceivcd. Thus , by way 01' Berkeley, Beckett marks the terrain ofthe text
ami through a splitting of the vision 01' the protagonist between the eye a nd
the object, the self ami the other, the eye and the gaze, he creates a narrative
01' the struggle for and against self-perception. The dramatis personae of Film
indude E and O. E is never seen until the end ofthe film, yet the film is filmed
via the perception 01' E through the use 01' pov camera shots, as he pursues
the object O. There are restrictions to the perception of E as he must always
remain in a 45 degree angle behind O . At 46 degrees O enters the "angujsb 01'
perceivedness." Beckett's scene direction reads, " A\1 extra neo us perception
suppressed, animal , human, divine, self-pereeption maintains in being. Search
for non-being in flight from extrancous perception breaking down in
inescapability of se1f-perception. No truth value a ttaches to aboye, regardcd
as of merely structura I and dramatic con venience. "27
Traditional dramatic structu re remains inta.cl in BedeU 's theatre no m att~ r
how im possibly red uced an d condc nsed lhe work hecoll1cs: protagonist.
a ntagonist. conOict , rcsllluli o n. Film is IlU eXl'I.:l' ti nn Film is slruc\ lIrcd in
1HR
Il ucc rurt~ . ~ tl\.'l: I , stlllrs llnd roolll. TIJ i! rOO" l M.:d Hl Il is il sclt' lliv idcd ill tl ll éC.
1) prcpura tiolllll'lhe room wherrin " a ll CX l ra ll C~lLIS pcrcc plion is supprcs:;cd ";
2) dcslrucl iOIl o flhe photographs; and 3) lhe "final invcstmclIl or Q hy E a nd
lhe denouement. " 1 8 In the first section on the street, O is relcnllessly lrackcJ
by E through a "dead straight" street peopled with eouples onl y. a\1 lraveli ng
in the same direetion , " a\1 contentedl y in pe rcipere and percipi ."29 O colli des
with an e1derly couplc, bu t m oves on. E pauses to view the couple. The woman
ealTies a monkcy under her armo " She feels the gaze 01' E upon lhem and
turns, raising her 10rl:,'llOn, to look at bim. She n udges her companion \Vho
turns baek towards her, resuming his pinee-nez, looks at E. As they both
stare at E the expression gradually comes over their faces which \. . iII be that
01' the fl ower-woman in the stairs scene and thal of O at lh e end 01' Fifm, an
expression only to be described as corresponding to an agony of perceived­
ness. " :10 The agony 01' pereeivedness is the experience ofbeing the object 01' the
gaze. The gaze has detaehed from the protagonist's eye and the couple see, or
hear, only the gaze. What do they see in the gaze? The second scetion on the
stairs repeats the detached gaze's desiring 01' the frail tlower-woman and her
collapse in the "agony of perceivedness. "
In the room we wateh O 's deliberate c10sing down of all extraneous percep­
tion . He cannot tolerate his position as picture. He se es from one point but is
"seeoe" from all points. The eyes of dog, cats, tlsh , birds, windows, paintings,
photogTaphs, furniture , are all c10sed ami hidden. Unseen , or so he might
wish to believe, O drifts off to sleep. At this point E is released from the 45
degree eonfinement. The eye confronts the object. The other eonfronts the
self as E is the double 01' O. O in perceivedness holds rus hands to his f~lce
covering his eyes. To see one's self is to demolish one's self, to know one 's
nothingness .
Film reminds us that the technologies 01' vision , and their will lo repres­
entation have at their essenee " no truth value attached ," to be "regarded as of
merely struetural and dramatie convenience. " The protagonist O sundered
into objeethood, races through the streets under the survcillance 01' the eye,
E in a " Search for non-being in f1ight from extraneous pereeption breaking
down in inescapability 01' sclf-pereeption . " 31 Film artieulates a revulsion lO
seeing oneself see oneself, what Deleuze called a quest to know "how can we
rid ourselves of ourselves and demolish ourselves .,m The sereen in Film is not
only the material site upon whieh the actual work (the film) is projected but
the optical and virtual space which hides the object from the eye and which
challenges a metaphysics 01' discovery. Whatever is behind the screen or
cmbedded within the screen is unknowab\c.
Genet's play The Sereens, whieh narrates elements of the Algerian struggle
rOl' independenee frolll France. pietures the etern a! recurrence of the screens
as a ma terial site of subjuga ted peoples upo n which are projecled the virtual
spaces presenlcd for the use 01' the colonia l power. T he pla y fl)1I0 WS Said , a
roOl' Ih ief. hi s M other, wllo is a lon g time :-. ull crcr a mi su rv ivor, a mi his wife,
\ ~ ¡ 1)
 1\1'1 11)"1'/\ '/1 N 1I TIl, ' I' NIII ' '',
L~ila. "lhe ugl i e~ l wO lllan in I hL' nexl h ,wn ,. I h~·> m e lile ~ l llll,;a:;(s lll" lile
rej~el cd . a bjeclion pers()ni licd. yct they k nll\V Ilow In lúneli on in a wl o ll i;¡(
system:
The Vamp: il's awfully hol.
The Son (to Said): Oid yo u hear? Make some sbade for Madamc ,
and be quick about il.
Said kicks Le ila, Ivho approaches Ihe screen and, l'ery s/owly l/mI ('urejúlly.
draws wilh green chalk a magnificen/ pa/m free.
The Vamp: (admiringly): Oh ! P aJm s!
new eyes: "Those are the truths ... ha! ... ha! ... ha' ha! .. . that can't be
Th e Son (to Leila): Make a little breeze fo r Mad ame ....
demonstrated ... ha' ha! (Hcr laughter seems uncontrollable.) Those are t he
With her 1110Ulh, L eila simula les {he sound oI lVind in Ihe branches and wilh
her skir/, /he rush o/airo
The Vamp (blandly): Thank you: I told you so: there are sorne
lovely ones among the 10L Not everything 's
rotten. Those , for example, (poinling lo Said
und Leila) they're no doubt SLlpporters 0('"
ours.'J
The French colonialists in the characters of The Vamp and The Son
demand that a world be painted for them on tbe eternal screens. Said and
Leila readily submit th eir skills for the comforts 01' the ruling class. Why
haven 't they used those skills to better their o\Vn lot? The stage is composed
of screens upon which are drawn the material objects that a re struggled over
and negotiated between ruler and colonial other. Genet's material screens,
like the projection screen in Film, are the primary element 01' the mise-en­
SCfl1e ; they are used to stage the stage. ln the narrative the s.c reens are con­
trolled by the AIgerians through the demands of the French. The screens are
a place, a location , wherein one can exit or enter, hide behind 01' be revealed.
They are in essence each a tiny theatre with curtains and prosceniums where
a world is created through the pictures drawn on their surface. The screens
are each a sign of constructed subjectivities and personalities. They are
sometimes opaque, translucent , breakable. Genet's play stages the world tha!
is created through representations, which is the only world we' ve gol.
The colonial soldiers understand the power of doubling, 01" mirroring, to
crea te the illusions of v01ume. One soldier should equal one million: " Let every
man be a mirror to every other man o A pair of legs must look at themselves
and see themselves in the pair of legs opposite, a torso in the torso opposile,
the mouth in another mouth, the eyes in the eyes .... ",4 The co lonia l power
is looking to control difference , to kili the other, through the replicat ion
of the screens as mirrors retlecting their o\Vn subjectivity. The colonialist
wi ll no t see who sta nds behind the Sl: reen, who m OVCli th em, 01' who paint!)
them . T o acknowledge their contribution is 10 shu re powe r and gran!
subjecth ood .
190
I " ' " 'd It 11 N II :-¡ 1 11 l ' I 11 I " 11 11 111 I
T lle SI,; I l!"'\I~ 111 \., c lld's pl ay also dcman;alc lhe spacc hetwecn llw livin g
alld lhe <..lI.:ad. Breaking lhrough lhe papa screens into lhe world o rlhe dcalh
Kadidja (as do lhe other eharacters upon entering the ncw space) exclaims,
..!\nd they make sueh a fuss aboul it!,,35 Kadidja is crashing through the
material , failing through the abjection , toward being on the other side 01' tbe
screens. The other side is lhe place outside the d iscou rse 01' representation s.
The screen is the boundary a t the closure 01' representation and in that space
laughtcr consumes the agony of subjugation, now finished . The Mother.
ha ving recently arrived on the other side 01' the screens, sees the worl d with
truths that are fabe! ... ha! ha! ha! ho! hol hO! "3(. The screens tu rned inside
out through the subject's vanish ing create a space wherein the fabrications of
the other si de are shown to be ridiculous, hideous, tragic.
Genet's play situates the discussion of the screens in a political and mater­
ial site, by asking who manages the sereens, controls what is projected upon
them, and imagines what they hilie. The issues of hyper-mediacy and the
ubiquity 01' the screens are not simply an aesthetic, a dense theory, a psycho­
analytical model , but a material, politica] pro blem . The screens co ver a large
portion 01' the earth, feeding our phantasms to the world. The screens are
creating postcolonial subjects from the comfort of a Burbank so und stage,
projecting the images 01' \Var distaneed from the reality 01' the conllict, ereat­
ing history's largest trap for the gazc of the world spectator.
Tbe rebirth of tragedy
The marking of the uncanny and the performance of split subjectivity in
technologically enhanced performance suggests much more than just a nc",
aesthetic but a symptom or a way of thinking through the transitional phase
Western subjcctivity is undergoing as a resu'lt 01' mediatization. The transi­
tion can be constructed as a re-birth oftragedy. Likc Nietzsche's model ofthe
birth of tragedy rooted in the movement from the di vine body to the body
inscribed and reduccd under the rule 01' societal law which flnds representa­
tion in the sacriflcial rituals 01' dismembcnnent (sparagmos), the ontological
shift from organic to technologieal, televisual, and digital beingness is tragic .
The tragic, in this case, finds representation and ,is projeeted in the fanta sies
ofthe fragmentcd and digital , medical and postcolonial body as articulated in
the art of Stelarc, Orlan, and GÓmez-Peña. Lacan \vrites,
[The] fragmented body ... usually manifests itself in dreams when
the movement ofthe analysis encoun lers a certain level ofaggressive
d isin tegrali on in th e individual. lt then a ppears in the form of dis­
joinh.:J 1imbs, 01' of those organs rep rescnted in exoscopy, growi ng
win¿!s a nd lakin !.! IIp arl11s ro r inlcs li nal pcrst!cll tiol1s, the very su me
\1 ' I
 MI PI" "N l ' '1 1; 1 \1 N 11 J 1.1 1 ~ \ 1 111
tlmt (tu; v isi onary Ilicnlllylll us Hosc ll h;I ~; 11 .\l'd 1111 alllill)c. ill r¡¡ inl ­
ing. in their ascenL frQ m lhc lineent ll cL:lI lur y lo lhe imagil)(lry rcni tit
of modern man .'7
The fragmented body appears at the vanishi ng poin t 01' subjecti vity. wh en
its nothingness is apprehended, when the doubte is dancing, when Pent heus'
head is raised by his mother and prodaimed to be a lion , when in fact it has
become the mask, the screen. When O meets E in the room sh ut o ut from all
pcrception save one, when the screens of postcolonialism are pierced, when
the oth er sidc 01' the screen is suggested and approaches, then tragic frag­
mentation is possible. Herberl Bla u p ut it this way: " Or is that we've had
along with tal k ofthe death oftragedy a twisted version of an active forgetting:
the invention 01' aesthetic strategies that \Vould, indeed, eit'her anesthetize us
against emotions \Ve found intolerable, or, as eventually in body art, confron t
us in such a way that they could be absorbed 01' expcricnced again')"]~ This is
not a tragedy of Oedipal identity, agency or fate. but a tragedy 01' unremern­
bered fragmentation 01' the real toward the virtual. Perhaps a rethinking of
tragcdy is possible now. Or necessary.
Answers
I began with two questions: How has the ontology 01' the performancc
(liveness) which exists before and arter mediatization becn altered within thc
space 01' technology? and how do we understand the processes of perform­
ance which converge with mediated technologies ofrepresentation? In answer
to the first query it is important to realize that performance, like the body
and its subjectivity which embodies and enacts the performative, has been
extended, challenged and reconfigured by way of its position in the space 01'
technology. Performance has taken on the ontology 01' the technological.
Nonethe1css. one \Vay to start to answer both q uestions is by conceiving of
theatre as a medium that overlaps and subsumes 01' is sLlbsumed by other
media including the television , film, radio, print, and the computer-ajded
hyper-media. Such a process will change, considerably, our definitions or the
boundaries 01' the theatre and the ontology of performance.
Notes
1 David Cronenberg, dir., Videodrome (Universal Picturcs, 1983).
2 Jacques Lacan , 7Ju: FOl.lr Fundamenlal COI1CeplS or P~ycl1O-all(/ly.\'is , transo Alan
Sherid a n (New York W. W . Norton and Company, 1981), 97,
3 Herbe rt Hlau writes il1 T/¡e Eye /JI Prey, "There is nothing more illuSMY il1
performa nce than th e il lllsio n o fthc unmed iated. It can be él vc ry powerrul illusioll
in th e thea te r. hu t it is the3H:r, and it is ¡hnller, t he Iru th nrillllSiol1. which haunl s
all performance whethcr or 1101 il ocnirS in Ih\; Ihc;iln wllc rc il is more Ihall
w:'
"«I(I IN IISI 01, 111 1 l)o \)UI. I
Jt llll>l,'" " V\. I , ' S.:c' rile FI'I'ur l'n'I ': S"III'I'f'.I'iml,\' ,,1' lile' /'0.1'111111"1'1'11 ( Oloo m ing fo Jl
IJld i1l 1l1l ll l1i vcrsil y I'rcss, 19~7). 164- (15,
.+ S la voj Zi 2~k . M appillg IdI'O/ogy (London: Verso. 1994).5.
5 See Phi lip Auslande r, Lirl'nes.\': Perjimllal1ce ;'1 a Medíalized Cl/lll/re (London:
Routledge, 1999).
6 See Philip Auslander. Lil'cnc.l's and Peggy Phelan , UnllU/rked: Th.e' Polilics o/
Peljorman ce (London: R outledge, 1993) for a complete discussion regarding th e
issues of liveness and perfonmll1 ce in mediatized cultures.
7 Sec Sue- E llen C ase, T/¡e Domail1-Malrix: Pe¡:!árlllil1g l _e.l'hian al Ihe El1d o/Pril1l
Culture (Bloomington: Indiana Unj versity Prcss, 1996) for a fuller explication 01'
the natllre ofsubjectivity at " the e nd ofprint culture, "
8 I am making reference to I"'lerleau-Ponty's distim:tion betwecn "physiological
facts which are in space and psychic facts which are now here" in Maurice Merleau­
Pont y, P/¡enomel1olog.y oI Percepliol1. transo Colin Smith (London: Routledge and
Kegan Palll , 1962). 77.
9 Avital Ronell , The Telephol1e Book: lechl1ology, schizofJhrel1ia. eleC/ríe ,\ peedt
(Lincoln: University of Nebraska P ress, 1989). 69,
10 Sigmund Freud , "The U nca nny" in The S/al1dard ediLiol1oj'/he Complele psycholo­
gicalll'orks o(Sigmul1d Freud, Vo/. 77, trallS, and ed. James Straehey in collaboration
with Anna Freud (London: Hogarth Press alld the Institute of Psycho-analysis.
1955).241.
11 Peter Weir, dir., File 1'/'11111(/11 Sho\\' (Paramollnt Pictmcs, 1998) and Ron Howard .
dir. , Edil! (Universa l Pictllres, 1999).
12 Gary R oss. dir., Pleasl/l1/I·i1le (N ew U ne Cinema, 1998).
13 Barry Levinson, dir., Wag Ihe Dog (T ri beca Prodllctions, 1997).
14 Slavoj Z izek. The Plague o/Fanlasies (L ondon & New Y ork: Ye r~o . 1997).131.
15 See M ichael Walsh. ".I arneson and 'Global Aesthetics'" in P osl- Theorl': r(,('()I1 ­
s lruclingjill11 ,I'/udies, ed . David Bordwell and Noel Carroll (M a dison : lÍll iversity
of W iseonsin Press, 1996). 481- 500, for furthcr reading on the topic 01' post­
Lacanian, post-theoretical film studies.
16 See Herbert Blau, The Audience (Baltimore: Johns 1I 0pkins University Press.
1990) and Phelan , Ul1l11arked, as examples 01' Lacanian theory applied to the fiel d
of theatre and performance studies. For an analysis of the scopic drive in thcatrc
practice and spectatorship, sce "The M ost Concealed Object " in Slau. 1'he Audi­
e/lee, 50- 94.
17 Thc gaze, or more specificall y the malc gaze, Illay be one ofthe IllOst misused terms
in the critical theory of performam:e. Lacan writes this of the gaze, "1 n our rclation
to things. in so far as this rclation is constituted by the way of vision, and ordered
in the figures of representation , sornething slips, passes, is transmitted , from stage
to stage, and is always to sOll1e dcgree eluded in it , that is what we call the gaze."
Lacan, FOil/' Fundamental COI1 CepIS, 73_
18 Lacan has this to say regarding the naturc of the split subject, "In my opinion , it
is not in this dialectic hctween the surface and that which is beyond tha! things
are suspended. For my part, I set out from the t~let that there is something that
establishes a fracture, a bi-part ition, a splining of hcing to which the bcing
accomTl1odates itself, even in t he natural wor ld." Ibid .. IOG.
19 Ibid., 83.
20 Ibid., 107.
21 See Ro bert Avcrs, "T he spec ial and the unusual: Iistening to Orlan" in Uv e Arl Lei­
las (No. 4, Ma rch 1999) . Website a dd ress: http://art.ntu.ac.lIk /li veart /ind ex.ll trn.
22 See M~ltth ew Causey, "Televisu flJ Pe rfonn ance: ' Qpenness to t he mystery,' '' in
EI·sor.\' ill T/¡('(flrclF·:liIde.l Thealmles (Vol. 13, No. 1. November 1994) for él
..\) \
 M I 11 1/\ I\NIJ II ,I.· IIN III '}ln

compklc discussionllf Ihe LI S,: nf vidl"11 11 I h l'

W{\O!>. I I.' I (itllllP 's " h ;¡lI k D(!ll's I asl
Templalioll Or sl. Anl hqlly. "
23 Lacan , Four FUllda/1/ental Cmce{Jts. I()(J. 89
24 Ibid ., 83.
25 Ibid ., SS.
26 Ibid ., 107. T I-l E A RT OF I N TE R AC TIO N
27 Samuel Bcckctt.. " Film" in Samuel Beckell: The Comp lete f)ramCltic Work,\ (l 011 ·
don: Faber and Faber, 1986),32). lnteractivity, performativity, and computers
28 Ibid. , 323,
29 Ibid " 324.
30 Ibid " 325.
31 Ibid. , 323 David Z. Saltz
32 Gilles Deleuzc. Cinema 2: Th e Tíme-bnage, transo Hugh TomlinsOIl and Robcrl
Ga kta (Minneapolis: Universit y of Minnesota Press, 19S9), 123,
33 Jcall Genet, The Screens, trans, Bcmard Frechtman (New York: Grave Press.
Sourcc: TI/(' .!oul'lla/ ,,(A esl!1P1icS ()l1d Arl Crilicism 55(2) (1997) : 117 127 .
1962), 110.
34 IbiJ. , 119.
35 Ibid., 143.
36 Ibid., 155.
37 Jacques Lacan, EcrilS: a selectiol1, transo Alan Shcridan (New York: W. W. Norl on
ancl Company , 1977),5 ,
3S Herber; Bla u, Tu A" Appearances: ideology (/Ild perjiml1((l1c(, (London: Routled gc. 1
1992), 126.
" Interactive technology" i~ one of the hot concepts of the 1990s. Advertisers
and entrepreneurs are effectively exploiting its allure to entice consumers to
buy products and investors to imiest in speculative ventures. The media are
hyping the concept to capture readers and viewers. A nd in the past fe w years,
it has become a powerful magnet for a rapidly growing num ber 01' artists
with backgrounds in a wide range 01' disciplines, induding the visual arts,
music, dance, and theater. Suddenly, interactive computer art is everywhere:
theaters, museums, galleries, and exhibitions and performance series associ­
ated w,i th large special-interest computer art conferences such as the Special
Interest Group for Graphics 01' the Association for Computing Machinery
(SIGGRAPll), tlle Ranff Cyberconf, ami the International Symposium on
Elcctronic Arts (ISEA), There is a sense, at least among the computer artists
themselves , that something new and important is happening: a new art form
is in the making. 15 it'? Or is ",i nteractive computer art" nothing more than
new technology tacked onto old art forms? Underlying this question is a
more basic question about interactivity itself: is interactivity, or the type of
interactivity \Ve see in computer art, a new phenomenon. and more specific­
ally, is it new to art'!
Certainly, something importantly different seems to be going on here.
Introducing interactive technology into an art form complicates the ,i dea of
the " author" and the identity of the " \York." ror example, interactive com­
puter music blurs the distinction between composer, instrument designer, and
perfo rmer, with the nominal "co mposer" often producing not a set musical
scorc, bu! a cOlllplex computer a lgorith1ll that genera tes sequences of music
in rcspl1 nSl.' to ;¡ pcr l"o rmer's gest u re::;, Icuv ing Ih e performer free lo improvise

N'I 'N';;
 M 1~1111\ ¡\ NI1
thl: gl:stll n:s. T hc '\;OlllpOSCI" in sllch ¡;¡I"I;S d llc~ 1101 co mposc I bl! 111l1sic pl:1
se, but crca tes a kinu o f su pcr-instrlllllcI1t, with hllilt-ill in lclligcnu:. illiliative.
and aesthetic sensibility. The perfonncr picks IIp many 01' the Iradilional
functions of the composer- and along the way becomes a kinu 01' dance!".
as \Vel!.
The pcculiar role of th e composer in slIch cases is paraoigmatic of the
artist's function in interactive computer art generally. fnsofa r as a work is
interactive, the artist cedes control over lhe seq uence 01' events that any gi vcn
spectator will encounter, allowing the piece to vary with each interacti on.
SlIch works often retain the capacity to surprise lheir own creators, produc­
ing sequences of evcnts that the artist never envisioned. The protean and
transitory nature of interactive computer art has led critics such as Christinc
Tamblyn and Ti mothy Bin kLey to pro pose that interactive computer art is
a form of conceptual art, aud indeed that it represents the culmination of
the movement in twentieth-eentury art history toward what Lucy Lippard
famously described as the "demateriali zati on of art. " 1
TbJis proposal has its appcal. Interactive computer artists UO seem lo work
largely in the realm of ideas, creating logical structures in the medium of
software. Inleral:tive computer art , howcver, can never exist ol1lv as software.
The work must reach out inlo the world in so me way to capture the human
interactor's input: the interactor must either make physical contact with a
physical object or make movements within an articulated region of real
space. Anu the work must project some sort ofstimulus- sound, image, kinetic
movement-·back into the \Vorlu for the audience to perceive. Very often
interactive computer artworks incorporate sculpturaJ anu scenic elements.
For example, Paul Garrin 's interactive installation " Yuppie Ghetto with
Watchuog" (1989- 1993) consists of a video projection of an upsca1e eham­
pagne reception surroundeu by real barbed wire, in front of which is a video
monitor. " As the viewer approaehes the installation, a German Shepherd
appears on the monitor and barks violently at the viewer. The dog aggres­
sively follows the viewer's movements with its eyes and head. (The system
tracks the viewer's position by mean s 01' a security camera mounted incon­
spieuously over the viewer.) Though the artist's programming determines the
behavior 01' this piece, the piece itself exists not only as a "concept," but also
as a sculptural installation \Vith both three-dimensional and t\Vo-dimensi o nal
elements. It relies on the tangible qualities of its images and sounds to create
its highly visceral impact.
Interactive computer art strikes Binkley and Tamblyn as "immateria J"
beca use they are taking the visual arts as their nOflnative paradigm: in ter­
active artists do not produce fixeu , immutable material objects, and so , the
implicit reasoning goes, Ihey must be producing " immaterial " objects. T he
on tology o f interacti ve co mputer artworks seems Iess exa lic if we look U) the
performing arts instead of the visual a rts as our point o f reference. Perfo rm­
ing 3rts have always gi ven rise to tra nsitory (lnd variLlbk o b jects o f acslhet ic
1l)()
1111-: A l{ r (JI' I N I I IlAC ' IIIIN
alh:nl iol1. This is o hvi o usly Irue in lhe case 01" illlprovisatory forllls, slIch as
jazz anu improvisalional lhealer, but it is equally true in the most conven­
tional Westcrn theater and music. Playwrights and composers are "concep­
tual artists " in much the same way as are computer artists: they do not
directly produce the tangible stimuli that any given audienee will experience,
but instead produce what mighl loosely be described as a blueprint for per­
formances. They produce performance lypes as opposed to performance
tokens.' Each performa nce of a play or musical composition is unique in its
tangible partieulars, and different dircctors ' productions of the same play
exhibil even more extreme variations. Tndeed , the works that playwrights and
composers produce-plays and musical compositions- in themselves are less
material than the works 01' most interaclive computer artists. Typieally, per­
haps inevitably. computer artists conflate the roles af the pl aywright, the
director, the designer, and even the performer. They rarel y delegate respons­
ibility for the mise en sccne lo someone el se, as a typical playwright does; Paul
Garrin himse\fis responsible for all aspeC lg of his installations. Moreover, the
programs they write do not rely on human performers to interpret them , as
scores ano playscripts do, but control the eomputer's performance directly .
The objective 01' this paper is to define the extent to wh ieh in teractive
computer art is a species of performance. Recognizing that interactive com­
puter art is adose cOLlsin of the traditional performing arts c\ears up some
ontological quandaries abaut the art form o M oreover, it will put us in a
position to see that the fetishization of interactive technology among many
contemporary artists and crities relates c10sely to the role live theater and music
themselves still have to play in a technological age. However, as our brief
consideration 01" the role 01' an interactive composer has already suggested,
interactive computer art follows a uil"ferent logic from tha t of traditi onal
performing arts. Recognizing the po.ints of continuity between interactive
computer art and other performing arts will put LIS in a position to define
more precisely \VhClt really is new aboul this art formo Before I can give
substance to this argument, however, I will need to put some f1esh on the
concept of interactivity itself.
11
What does it mean for a work of computer art lo be " interactive",? The mere
use of a computer to produl:e the artwork , for example, lo create an image,
edit a video , or dcsign a sculpture, is not sufficient. Very gcnerally, for a work
to be interactive, the following cvents must occur in real-time:
l . A. sensing or input device translates certClin aspects 01" a person 's behavior
in to di gi tClI form that a com puter can understand.
2. T he computer olltpuls da ta thal are systematically rclated to the input
(L e., Ihe illplll alYccts lhe Olll pu t).
19 7
 MldllA ~Nll 1I !I' IINIILlHi\
3. The olllpul Jalu are l runshlkd hild illlo Ica l-w\lrld r henllmc na ti ", 1
people can pen:eive.'
For examp1c. the computer might instruct a synlhesi zer lo produce musical
notes in response lo inpUI fro m a keyboard: it might start a motor whcll
someone moves in front of Rn ultrasound sensor; it might changc a light 's
intcnsity in proportion to the volume of sound pi cked up by a microphone.
and the light's color in proportion to the so und's pitch . T he computer migh t
use any kind of real-world input to produce any kind of real-world outpu t.
since in any case a1llhat lhe computer is manipulating is d igital infonnat ion .
One might argue that the aboye definition of computer interactivily in
itself settles the q uestion of whether interactive com puter art is a perform ing
art. By definition , all interactive computer artworks cngage at Ieast one human
participant in the live performa nce of a series of actions. Live performance is
precisely the element that characterizes the performing arts. Does it folJ ow
then, that interactive computer art is by del/ni/ion a perforrning art?
lJnfortunately, lhe problem is not that simple. To say that one can no!
experience an interactive computer artwork in the absence 01' live human
activity is not necessarily to say that this activity constitutes a perlórmullcc .
Afler all , one cOllld say that an encounter with an artwork of al1y kind is a
" performance" in that very generous scnse. Reading books, watching films.
and attending art exhibits are complex activities that transpire in real-time
ami involve living human beings. 5 Books do not leap off bookshelves, open
their bindings, and read themselves, nor do videotapes pop themselves in to
video cassette recorders and watch themselves.
What, then, disting~¡ishes the kind of"live human activity" that performe rs
engage in from the kind that audiences engage in? The simple answer is:
performers perform for an audience, whiJe audiences "peliform" only for
themselves. Whether or not a work of interactive computer art is a " per­
formance," then , depends on whether it is being performed for an audience .
We must distinguish works of interactive computer art in which performers
interact with the system while the audience looks on from those in which lhe
audience interacts with the system directly. I will call works in the tirsl
category "staged interactions," and those in the second " participatory inter­
actions ." If we accept "performing for an audience" as the distingu.ishing
characteristic of performance, it follows that all staged interactions are per­
formances, ami all participalory interactions are not.
This conclusion is valid as far as it goes, but that is not very fa r. It
contributes nothing to our understanding of interactive computer art pe
se, since the ditlerence betwcen staged and participatory intcraclions is n OI
due to any feature inhercn t in lhe interaclions thc ll1sclves. A ny acti vily
including the act 01' rcad ing a book o r walch ing ;¡ fillll ca n be pcrfM lllcd f"¡
an audicnce. and will thcrcby bcwmc ti "pcrlilll1la IICC, " Thc d ilTcl"cncc bClwccn
staged ¡¡ nd participatory in lcracl íons is HUI,; I Ir pI " spcl.: tivc: in tite fir:;l casco
lllX
1 111 : ti 1{ I ti 1: I N 1I I( ti (" 11 11 N
Ihe auJit:ncl.' is Itloking al the inleraclion from oulsid c lhe systCnl, ,¡ud in llll'
second, rrom within the system. To be sure. this difference has far-rcaching
aesthetic implications (some 01' which I will touch on toward the end 01' this
paper). But the nature of interactivity itself- that is, the range of ways that
input data might be transformed into output data- is the same in either case.
To assess whether the phenomellon 01' " interaction " i_n com p uter art bears
any inherent relation to that of " performance" in the perforrning arts, we
need a richer understanding of perfomlance. The 1~l et that performances
take place before aud iences does not give us eno ugh to go on. In the perform­
ing arts , as in all other art forms , each audience member's encounter with the
work is a unique event, and the spectator plays a role in that event as a
spectator. But in performing arts, not only is the audience's encounter with
the artwork an event, but the work encountered is iLse({ an event. Perfolm­
ance is the medium . The live performance of actions is the stull out ofwhich
the art is made . The audience regards the perfo rmance as an aesthetic object
in its own right.
For the sake of c1arity, I will use the term " performing arts" to designate
thc c1ass 01' art forms in which one group of pcople, ¡.e., performers, perform
live before a second group, i.e., an audience. As we have scen, this c1ass
includes staged interactions and exc1udes participatory interactions. 1 \ViII use
the term "performative" to designate the broader class 01' all art forms in
which live human behavior constitutes the aesthetic object. T his c1ass, too,
includes staged interactions, since it encompasses all the performing arts. Thc
question that remains is whether participatory interaetive a rl is perfo rmative.
In participatory interactions, do the interactors perceive their own actions to
be aesthetically significant? Does the audience actually become part of the
work of art?('
No answer to this question follows directl y from the definition 01' inter­
activity. To make further progress, we must stop considering computer inter­
action as a unified phenomenon and draw so me distinctions betwcen various
kinds 01' interactive systems. Each work of interactive computer art estab­
Iishes a particular kind of rclationship between live interactor and eomputer­
controlled media. The extent to which a work is performative is a function of
this relationship. The easicst way to see this point is by briefly considering a
range of examples spanning from nonperformative to fully perfonnati ve.
III
Many interaetive systcms consist 01' simple triggers that call up images, blocks
of text, extended audio or video sequences, or some combination 01' these.
The triggers themselves typicall y take the fonn of a "meou " of words, iconic
buttons, or c1ickable pictures On a computer's mon ito r. though they can also
be mechanical butto l1s, such as th ose 011 man y a utomatic teller machines. The
va ~l m a jori l y nI' commen.:ial C!>- ROMS 1l0W O ll the market conform to this
¡(jI)
 1"1 1: LI I 1 \ J\ ¡'Ioj J , J I I 1I ~ t J I l' (í \
lIlodcl 01' intcractivity. Though tbesi! pltldlll'h 4111': IIyped as the harbingers
01' lhe in teractive revolution, they are in (olct onl y Illi nimalJy in lera¡;live. 'nll!y
simply Gollect togethcr a group of wh a t are, in clreet, multiplc aulonomo us
prcsentations. The on Iy choice the jntcractor has is lvhich 01' theso presenta­
tions to view whel1. This type of " interaction" is nod ilfercnt in kind from thal
afforded by a printed anthology or encyclopedia, 01' , for that ma tter, a record
player, a video cassette recorder, or an audi o compact di sc pla ycr. These
systcms place the in teractor sq uarely in the roJe 01' the reade!" 01' él lex t, or the
consumer ofmass-produced media; there is no element oflive performance in
such interactions.
A step up on the intcractive ladder is the mode dubbed by T heodor Nelson
in the late I 960s as "hypertext," 7 which later expanded into ·'hypcrmedia."
This mode 01' interaction is currently being developed on an enormous scale
in the world-wide network retened to as the "World W ide W eb. " The differ­
l:nce between this mode and the previo us one is that in hypermedia there is
110 division between the "menu" of opti OT1S and the "eontent" to which tbose
\) rtiolls reler. Thc system presents only eontent with links to more content.
I' o r exalllple, a hypernovel, such as M ichacl Joyce's Ajiernoon, presents the
rC'IIJer with one short passage oftext at a time. Each passage has a number 01'
" hot"' words or phrases that link to a passage someho\V related to it. For
eX~l mplc, ir a passage contains the sentence "They were waitiog for Harry,"
SOI1lC rC¡lders might select the name "Harry" and read a f1ashback about that
cha racter's feckless yOllth , aod others might select the word " waiting" and
read an extended allusion to Wailinglor Godo!. Whiehever passage they end
up reading will contain a new set 01' lin ks. In this way, readers choose their
o wn paths through the novel, paths that reflect their own preoccupations and
dis posilions. Hypermedia, of course, are not restricted to text; for example,
wh at Nelson ealls a "hypergram" is structurally identical to a hypernovel, but
the content consists oflinkcd images instcad 01' textual passages. Hypermedia
interactors are doing more than triggering autonomous media segments.
Each chllnk of media relates to the previoLlS one in some way, and so the
interaction is apt to have a sense of eoherence, at least from moment to
mornent---though il is unlikely to have a linear structure with a clear begin­
ning, middle, and end.
Certainly people \Vho intcraet with works 01' hypermedia play an active
role in strueturing their own expcrience. Slíll , this mode of interaetion is no t
inherently performalive. A hypermedia interface, to an evcu greater extcnt
than a hierarehieal menu-stylc interface. gives viewers control over what they
will see and hear at any given moment. It allows them to choose their own
paths ¡hrough the work. Hut it does not cast viewcrs as participanls ¡("i¡hin
the work itselfsimply by virtue ofemploying a hype rmedia interface. Neilhcr.
(}Il~ should stress, do viewers truly bccome t:o-au thon; 01' lhe wo rk, as
hyp\.: nncd ia cnt h usi asls sometimes li ke to suggesllhey do. K Sl llart Mo ulthrop
Jlo ill lcdly observcs tha t
.Joo
l' 111 i\ 1< I ji l' I N 1 I I( A « T TUN
(he cU II :i tallll y IL'peatcd ritual ul" ill lltllld illll, with its remindcr 01"
d isc ll r~a vc
altcrna tivcs, n!vca ls the l.Cxt as a lI1ade thing, nol mono­
lagic pcrhaps, but hardly indcLcrminate. The lexl gestures toward
openness- w!w! oplÍO/lS con you imagine but then swiftly foreeJoses:
some options are a va ilable but not others, and someone clearly did
the defining long befare you bcgan interacting. 9
Notice that spatial metaphors govem the rhetoric of hypermed ia: people
move along palhs from link to link , !/"al'elil1g through ey her.\j}(tce. Rather thao
funetioning either as performers or as authors, hypermedia audienees func­
tion as explorers. They are like tourists, rushing through the areas that do not
interest them, lingering when they find somethi ng that stri kes their fancy,
meandering down an intriguing alleyway, perhaps getting lost for a while before
finding their way back to a familiar landmark. AII the whi le, the interactors
keep their eyes on the road . Their objeet 01' attention is the work, not lhemselves
in lhe work. 'o
Frorn a teehnical standpoint, virtual reality syslems are far more inter­
active than hypermedia systellls. Hypermedia allow interactors to intervene
periodicaJly by choosing from among the words and images presented to
thelll, but virtual reality systems must respond to a constant stream of input
from the interactor. A virtual reality system strives to create the illl1.'iion that
the interactor is moving within a three-dimensional image, and it does so by
constantly updating perspective renderings to correspond wi th the changes
in direction and velocity that the interactor signifies. (The system, 01' course ~
must incorporate some sort 01' input device lO alJow the interactor to com­
municate these choices, such as a Illouse, joystick. video-capture device, data
glove, 01' body suit, and the typc of input device used will affect the interactor's
s u bjecti ve sense of immersion.) Tho ugh vi rtua l rea li ty diHeTS from hyperIned ia
systems in the degree of responsiveness, the underlying mode of interaction is
not inhercntly any more perfonnative. Computer artists can use virtua l real­
ity systems to create nonperformative interactions that position interactors as
observers external to the aesthetie object.
Imagine, for example, a virtual sculpture garden through which you can
roam about at will to scrutinizc virtual sculptures from any vantage point."
To be sure, there is an enorlllous difference between viewing a real and a
virtual sculpture. Kcndall Walton's theory 01' representation is helpful in
pinpointing the differenecs. 12 According to \Valton's theory, a sculpture of a
lion is a prop that allows me to imagine that I am sceing a real lion. 1 do not,
however, necessarily imagine that the lion is in {he room with me; I \ViII
probably not imagine (though I might choose to do so) that in addition to my
sceing the lion, lhe lion sees me. When I touch the sculpture's nose, I will not
necessarily im agine that I am tOllching a lion 's nose, and so I will not need to
invent for myse lf an explamltion for wh y the lion remains passive (though
agai ll, 1 migh t ch oo sc to do [tll th ese thi ngs) .
111 I
 M nn ' 1\ ,\ N 11 I Ll ' 1I N lJ I (JI. \
I lnw Jo\.:s Ih,~ si l'lalilll1 c hallgl! ir I I! lI l"lIl1lt~'1 . 1 11011 sc ulplurc ill a virtual
SL'lIlpl un: gullc ry'l In Ihis i.'as,~, I irllaginc (hal l .1111 s¡';l:IlIg a .I'mlp lurc 01' al ioli .
I will proha bly U/Sil imag ine Ihal I am scci ng a Icallion . (InJecJ . on Wa lton \ .
view ir I n~cog:ni zc the virtual sculpturc as being o/a !ion, then at SOITlC level
I 11//1.1'1 be imagining a reallion.) That is nol to sayo however. that I imagine
IIIa1 I am secing 11l'() Ihings, an animal anJ a sculpture. R ather, I imagine th at
I!/(' !lro!1 Ilwl I a/11 lI.I'ing lo imagine a /ion is a sell/plure. It is the status of th is
lasl proposilion that Jistinguishes real sculpt ures from virtual o l1es. When I
s,:c a real sculpturc, the proposition is tfue; when I see a virlual one, it is
lid io nal.
Wh ile this difference is extremcly important. both ontologically anJ phe­
1I(llllc nologically, il uoes not makc visiting the vi rtual gallery any more or less
!w//imnutil'e than visi ting an actual sculpture gallery. I might spenJ hours
cxamining a virtual \ion sculpture, aJmiring both the fine artistry of the
virlual-reality re ndering and the sculptural form that rendering reprcsents.
wilhout imagining that Imyselfhave spent time in the same room with either
a rcallion 01' a real sculpture. If I notice that I am not casting shaJows on the
sculpture, though the sculpture casts shadows on itself, and if I notice that the
sun never changes position in the sky, I will not neccssarily feel the neeJ to
invent a story exp1.a ining these facts. I will not even necessarily invent él story
cxplaining why I can walk right through the supposedly solid sculpture. The
interactive systern might function as nothing more than a mechanisrn for
vicwing virtual objects.
Now imagine that you are peacefully contemplating a sculpture ofa lion in
the virtual sculpture gallery when unexpecteJly the lion comes to life , lets out
an agonized roar, anJ extenJs its virtual paw towarJ you. Just as you are
about to run away, you notice a large thom sticking out of its paw. The lion
glances briefty at the thom, then glares imploringly at you. You have no
choice but to respondo Even your refusal to acknowleJge the lion 's behavior
would surely provoke sorne kinJ of reaction in the lion . SuJdenly you are
thrust out of the role 01' external observer anJ into the work of art. You r
imaginative project changes. In KenJall Walton 's terms , yOll becorne a prop
in your own gamc 01' make-believe." YOll becorne a live performer in the
work, anJ the work becornes peTformativc.
In the case of any art form, what a spectator perceives to be aestheticall y
significant varies accorJing to the spectator's perspcctive. For example,
insofar as my copy of Anna Karenina is an example of the art of bookma king,
propertics such as the typefacc anJ the size and texture of the paper are
acsthetically signiflcant; insofar as it is a work of literaturc, they are nol.
Similarly, as l stroll around a real 01' a virt ua l sculpture garuen, sway to the
bcat or a [(,¡ek band , 01' surf the WorlJ W iJe Web, 1 may 01' rnay oot pcrcei vc
rn y ow n aCl ion::.- my ()\v n " perrormance" as ,In acs lbct it: objecl. '"
Thcrc is nn impo rta nl di st indi on. howcvcr, h~ I WI:C ll Ihose cases in which
spL'cl a Lms SCl' thcir own pcrrm munccs ll:-- ,lutlulI iled . CVC II Illa lltl atc<J by a
,IIP
r 111: ,, /( / t H 11'/"1'1 /~ ¡\ ( 1 lt 'N
WO I k as 11 1 Ihe I..'asc ol'lIIc ani ma kd virtllallioll and Ih ose ill whiéh Ihe)! do
\In\. Illlighl II l1agi llc lhat al\llost any lion sculplurc is a living, brcathing fclinc
aboul lo pounec 011 me, anJ p rocceJ lo <IC ! o ut a short Jrama elaborating on
that sccl1ario. Moreover, I might regarJ the ensuing Jrama as an aesthetic
objcct, taking Jclight 01' flnding faults in the Jramatic structure anJ acting.
My cxperience wi Lh Ih at sculpture woulJ be performative. The scuJpture
itselr, howcver, wnulJ not be. I woulJ probably, and properly, perceive the
p~rformance to be 111)' OlVI1 creatíon , inspireJ by a nonperformative work
createJ by someone else. In the hypothetical example of the ani mu teJ lion,
however, the work itselfis unambiguously performa ti ve. It is c1earl y designed
to give rise to performances, anJ explicitly accollnts for the audience's role
within those performances. Sorne artworks fall somewhcrc between these two
examples, giving the spectator a choice about whcther to interpret them as
performative. Imagine, for examp1e, a ball suspendeJ from a string, Jangling
in front of a bell ín an art gallery. Some spectators might regard this work as
a static sculpture; others might hit the bell \Vith thc ball anJ foclls on the
sounJ produced, carefully evaluating the quality of the tone; and yet others
might interpret the installation as an invitation to play anJ begin experi ment­
ing with the variety of tones anJ rhythms they can create. O nly in the last of
these cases do thc spectators perceive the work as performativc. 15
Ofcourse, a work ofinteractive computer art neeJ not h,,¡ve a virtual reality
interface to be performative. A robotic sculpture 01' a lion migh! engage a
spectator in much the same way as the virtual lion sculpture. Inoeed , evcn
the most basic menu-Jriven computer interface might be useJ to creale an
llnambiguously performative work.
ConsiJer, for example, Luc Courchesnc's installatioo Family Portrails
(1993) . In this piece, video projections of four peop1c lal k a mong themselves
until a participant enters the gallery , at which point one 01' the figures ad­
Jresses the participant Jirectly. The participant responJs to the figure by
se1ecting phrases and questions from a list on a computer monitor. DepenJ­
ing on the participant's se1ections, the figure may choose to stop conversing
with the participant anJ turn back to its compatriots (which happcns, for
example, if you start " talking" to a granJfatherly figure about computers),
may establish a formal but corJial relationship with the participant, or may
Jevelop a bond \Vith the participant and begin confiJing intimate sccrets.' (,
Both Family Portrails and my hypothetical exampk of the animateJ
lion sculpture happen to be mimetic. but performative computer art can also
be nonmimetic. For example, over many years the jazz trombonist anJ
computer musician George Lewis has JevelopcJ a complex program calleJ
Voyager that improvises music. Built into the program are rules for creating
Illusic in a number of stylcs, using a wiJe range of tonal systems from arounJ
the woi ld. The program is perfcctly happy to play on its own, making cer­
tain choices ramlornly ano othcrs in respon se to its own previous choices.
Bul when il "hears" un o lhcr ll1usiciall ( I ha\ is, whcn it reccives inpul rmm a
111 \
 I\n ~ n 11\ fiN " - 1 'T~-n
pitch-tU-MII>I ~\l llvc rlcr), 1I will rcad l ~' \Vital it !le,,,,> by, rol' cxalllp lc. :tllcl ing
its rh ythlll s a mI tem po, p icking Uf) on a m i moJiry ing mcllldic li nes, ele. W hih:
tlll~ pmgram is vt::l'y rcspol1sive, its beha vior is impossible to predid, eVCIl h'l r
Lcwis himself, both because of the complexity of the rules lhe progralll
cmploys and the t::lcmcnt of randomness that pcrmeates its algorithm s.'7 Now
it is ccrtainly possible that someo ne playing along wirb Voy ager could ad opt
él mimetic attitude, ima gining, for example, th al Voyager was a huma n being.
IlIdecd , the impulse to anthropomor phizc such a program is ha rd lo resist.
Bul slIch an attitude is not necessary in order for the work to be perCormative.
Pl~()ple \Vho impro vise with Voyager , focusing all tbe wh i1e 011 the real it y of
Ihe sitllation , marveling al the ability of the algoritbm to produce interesti ng
responses, marking the ways that the program reflected lhe musical lastes
allu idiosyncrasies of its ma ke r, are still an intel:,'Tal part of the performance.
active collaborators in the making 01' the music- in their own pereeption . as
well as in the pereeptions of a ny spectators externa! lo the interaction.
IV
The purposc 01' this brief examination 01' real and hypothetical cxamplcs of
interactive computer artworks was to learn something about the relationship
between performativity and computer interactivity, especially participatory
interactions. We can now draw t\Vo conclusions:
l. Some, but not all , kinds of participatory interactions are performative .
2. More significantly, a participatory interaetion is performative when the
interaction itself becomes an aesthetic objcct; in other words, partici­
patory interactions are performative to the extent that they are a/)oul
their own interactions . ' ~
Up until now, my objective has been to highlight the continuity between
interactive computer art and the traditional performin g a rts. Insofar as inter­
active computer art is performative, that continuity is deep ami important.
There is, ho\Vever, a crucial differencc between the role that perfol1llance
plays in works 01' interactive computer art ami in the performing arts. In
nearly all Western performing art forms , and many non-Western ones, pe/'­
formers pcr/orm lForks. Actors perform plays; musicians perform music;
dancers perform dances; Shamans perform rituals. The work (play, musical
eomposition , dance, ritual) is a direct object. It is what the perfo rmer dacs. In
" doing the \Vork ," the performer brings an instance of the work into the
world. Thc work is él type, amI its pcrformance is a token of the type.19
This type/token logic breaks down in the case 01' interactive comp uter a rt.
T o inte raet with él work of interaclive computer art does not produce él token
ofthe work tbe way performing a dramatic or m usical work does. Even whe n
a work of interactive ~Om p L1 ICr art is pcrformat ivc. tite work rllncl ions as un
·104
IJl I ' I\lel ClF I N l r llI\C- I- I CTN
illd ll\!cl r. II I1\,:1 Iklll a dirccl Ilbjccl 01' lh\! pcrlúnllcr's aclilllls. '1'0 intcract
wit 11 (J an ill '.; )'lIl'l'i(' Wa/('/¡dog, Co urchesnc 's Fal1lily Por/rai/s, or Lewis 's
VO.l'uger is not to pcrrorm Yuppie Watr:!ldoK. Family Portrai/s, or Voyager , but
to perrorm lVil/¡ lhe works. T he artists here do not define performance types,
but create interactive performance envirol1mell/s. Plays, musical compositions
and dances define a series ofaclions to be perfonned; interaetive perfo rmance
en vironl11ents provide contexts within which actions are pe rformed.
An apparent exception might be the practice, hardly unknown among
computer l11usicians, of creating a composition for a live musician ami a como
putero In this case, the composer-programmer writes a score 10 be performed
exclusively \Vith a specific interacti ve system , and designs the system to func­
tion exclusively wilh a musician playin g that scorc. An example 01' such a
piece is " Hok Pwak ," a piece of l11usic for "solo voice a nd electronics" by
Zaek Settel. In the case ofworks such as Settel's, the interactor docs produce
a token ofthe type by interacting with the system. " H ok Pwak" functions as
a d irect object of the performer's aetions: the singer pcrjórm.\· " Hok Pwak "­
though she cannot do so by herself, but only Ivilh /he computer. The situation
here is analogous to that of a violinist who performs a violin concerto with
an orchestra. "Hok Pwak ," however, is not a genuine counterexample to the
principIe that interactors do not perform work s 01' interadive compu ter art.
since "llok Pwak " is not , properly speaking, a wo rk ofinteractive com puter
art. lt is a musical work that incorporales an interactive com pu ter en viron­
ment. That is to say, the musical work combines (1) a score for a mllsician ,
with (2) a specification that the score be played in lhe context 01' él spec ilic
interactive environment. As Sette! himself s uggests, "Since the electronicl:i a re
live, the computer is used here as an instrument"2°- albeit an extreme!
complex instrument custom-designed for just this one composition- and an
instrument is not to be confused with the mllsic performed on it. Playwrights
ami choreographers might similarly create plays ami dances to be performed
in conjunction with an inleractive system, and in these cases, too, what the
performers are performing, the play or dance , remains logieally distinct from
the interacti ve system itself, which might funetion as performer, prop, set, or
any eombination of these .21 By contrast, works such as Yuppie Wa/chdog,
F{¡mily Portrail, and Vo y ager, which exist separatcl y from plays or musical
seores, are inextricable from the interactive systems that comprise thell1. The
artist presents the interactive environment as a work of art in its o\Vn right.
v
What aCCOllnts for the eurrent fascination with interactivity'? Why does
interactivity matter? This question IS espeeially pu:aling in the case of staged
interactions, that is, when the performer rather tha n Lhe audie nce is the inter­
actor. An enormous amount of effort goes into creatin g elaborate interactive
syslc1l1s wil h which danct::rs can dallee amI mll si cian s can play. W hy'? W hile
·10 ~
 MI ' IJI ·\NII 'I' I W II NI IIIII ,\
1 CW I!'. hus ill viuxl othcl II I11 S IÓ ;III N 111 " llI y wil" ' ·!lr(/).:('/', I,c 1I111Sll y
U I.' U I ¡!C
Ihe pwgralll hilllSclf, anu rn:qucn tly p Cl l III"JlIS JIl public wilh the programo
.J'>CS
11 he 'iim ply likcs Ihl~ Illus ic that the progralll cOllles up with, why tlOl~s he 11 01
jusI rcwrd J. {)}'(/ga's output on a particularly good tlay and use lhc tape in
conccrt'J Lcw is is \Videly recognized as one of the world's greatest living
tJ'()Jnhone playcr~. Surcly he could effectively sim ulate él sense of spo ntancity
ir Ihal were all that was rcq ttired. Does anyone ca re whether Lewis is playin g
alon g with a record ing or is real/y interacting with a computer in rea l time?
M uch 01' the rhetoric surrounding the new technologics suggests no!. As
rar hack as 19RO, approx il1lately a decade before virtual reality becamc a
ho uscholJ word , Theodo r Nelson wrote that
Ihc central concern of interaetive system design is what I call a
syslelll 's virll/alily . ... I use the term "virtual" in its traditional sense,
all o pposite 01' "real. " The rea/¡Iy of a movie includes how the
scenery was painted and where the actors were repositioned between
shots, but who ca res? T he virlualily of the rnovie is w/Ufl semIs lo be
ill il . Thc rC'(//i/.l' 01' an interactive system includes its data structure
ami what. languagc it's programllleu in- but again. who cares? The
importan! coneern is, IVIUlI does il seem lo be?22
This attitude is con~ istcnt with a semiotic vie", of aesthetic perception: works
01' ar!. includ ing performances, are signs, and what matters is what those
signs repreSel/l , !lot the reality underlying the signifiers. Sueh a view of
acs thetic perception is incomplcte at bes1. !\esthetic properties are not limited
to wha l we ean sce a nd hear; they are vitally influenced by what \Ve know and
believc?' T hc reality 01' an interactive system such as Lewi s's Voyager does
not cncompass only lhe internal workings of the program, but, erueially, the
t~lcl that the syslem is reaeting to the human intcractor in real time. Aeeord ­
ing lo Nelson's logie, this reality should be of absolutely no interes1. AII thal
sllllUld matter to llS are the visual appearanee and the acoustic properties 01'
Lcwis's performance. But th e reality does matter; indeed , the quality 01' lhe
music plays (Jnly a minor role in the fa seination this \York holds . Lewis's
pcrformance wilh Voyaga can be most captivating when Voyager's output is
the least appealing, and we sense Lcwis's attempts to urge lhe system int
mm \! satisfying Illusical territory. The interest here is in hearing the system
alld Ihe live performcr adapt to each other's performanees, in observing the
dc vcl opment 01' a un iq uc relationship between system and human. In oth er
w~)rds, what is most interestin g is precisely the feat itself, the aetion, the
eVell l.
r he prú p()si tion that in leracti vc cOll1puter aft is a ki ncl of co nceptual art,
wlllch I rcjectco iJl lhe first rart 01' this pupe r, ma y Iurn out to ha ve a n
c lCIlICll t nI' Iru lh In it .. I'ter HI L Lho ug h ror di rfi.: re JI I rC'1SOIlS rro lll (IJUse
T a rll hl yll ¡llId Binkky SLlP P()ScJ. In a p O S l mnOl!1 JI k d lnll logica l age, perhaps
Illfl
1'111; A J( l' oF I N II ' I(¡\ ( ' I)( 'N
c/!/ p el r\' f' 1I1íllln ' is a killd 01' CtlllCé ptllal ar!. Philip !\lIslander has slIggesl ed
tha Ilhe lllltiol\ uf " Iive perrormance" is currently in a sta te 01' crisis, as evim;ed
by lhe ~candal that ensued in 1990 wIJen the duo Milli Vanilli \Vas Jiscovered
merely to be lip-sYl1ching Juri ng their eoncerts·- and not even to their own
voices, since they had 110t supplicd the vocals for the recordings attributed
to them. As A uslander observes, " most 01' the eomrnentary was adamantly
opposed to the practiee, though virtually all of it also adrniued that the main
alldiences for the performers in question , mostly yo ung teenagers, Jidn 't
seem to care whether their idols actually sing or no1. " :4 The scandal, then,
represented a reaetion by nostal gic baby boomers- \Vho according Auslander,
were playing into the hand s of a media industry with a vcsted interest in
maintaining the cult of the individual superstar- to a rapidly spreaJing
epidemic of indifference toward live perfonnance in postmodern culture.
Since Benjamin 's seminal essay on "The Work of Art in the Age of Me­
chanical Reproduction ," \Ve a re inelined to associate teehnological art \Vith
reproduction and simu.lacra. Perhaps the current fascination with interactive
technologies is, in fact. part of the reaction agail7sl postmodern alienation , a
nostalgic revival of the modernist quest for presence and immediacy. In the
1960s, this desire for presence became an end unto it self. Actors in companics
such as the Open Theater and Performance Group aeled , at lea st in large
part, for themsclves, and often rcsisted public performance as long as poss­
ible. Such companies celebrated the process over the product. Part ieipatory
theater and happenin gs represented an attem pt to invite audicnces inl~) lhe
proccss, but rarely was that aetuallY possible. As R ichard SchecIJ ner, a k.ey
pi ayer in this movement, himsel f noted in retrospcct, the gap betwecn l hl!
performers - whose relationships and performances had dcvelopcd ovcr él
long time- ami the "o utsiders " was often too great to overcom c. 25 Particir­
atory interactive computer art, rather than marking the bcginning 01' a new
era, marks a renewed attempt to real ize the 1960s goa l of a participatory
environmental theater.
If that is , in faet , the goal, is it doomed to rail? Could partieipato ry
computer interactions succeed where participatory theater fail ed? There are
reasons to think that it migh!. Participato ry interactions have at least two
potential advantages over participatory theater.
While trained aetors often have difficulty truly opening up to strangers and
letting them into their ra nks, a computer will welcome anyone into its circle
and give each person its complete attcntion . I ronically, the computcr's very
laek of sentience makcs it, in sorne respects, a better actor, that is to say, a
better interactor, than a sentient human bein g. The computer will nol become
"stale" (one mi ght say that its perfo rmance is "always a lready stale"); it will
never anticipate o ut of habi1. W hen people perform a seq uence of actions
repeated ly. those actions bcco lllc easier, increasingl y " automalic, " seeo ml
nall1 rc. ~(' Thi~ process of habi tuatilln is hard-wircd into people. \t mUllt be
prograllll lh:d illto a com pu ter. !\ nd wri ting a prouram that Icams rrom its
111 /
 ~ II!I J I i\ 1\ r, 11 '1 t 1\ N " I- ! 11 • )
pll~ 1 l'Xpc lil: l ln:s í¡.. vm;lly dillÍl.: UII 111.1 11 ,,, ' Itlll ~' OIW lita l ;1I'f'l1\';l!.. h~s
Il1 tll l!
~a l.:h illlel ad ll'll arres l!. 'l'he bu~k Slu pidi ly 1,1' ,1 CI!l lI rlll \!1' is its grl,;all!lil a-;<a:1
Co tn l'u l Cl's ncvcr ¡;h¡;al, get lazy , or lin: , un k:ss lite)! are apli¡;il ly dcsigncu 111
liD so. Onl' ll1ighl say that pl'ople 's al'tions na turally be¡;OIllC a ulomalk:. whik
l'Olllputers' al'tions autolllatically rell1ain nat ura l. A computer wi ll aul omat­
inllly e xi~t in the hcrc-and-now and respond in lhe moment , wit ho ut evcn a
day 01' Zcn or Meisner-stylc training.
¡\ second problem that mises with part icipatory theater is th at a ud ie n0c~
are apt to become sclf-l'onscious. Environlllental thcater was celebrated r~)r
ils transformation of vicwers into parti¡;ipants, but \ess rema rke.d upon was
ils equally radical transformation of actors into audicnce. Actor!:>. being senlicnl
human bcings, do not merely aet a nd react, but also perceive. In a discussion
rollowing one of Schecbner's environ m ental performances, a participant ­
spectator confessed that " the expectancy of it alllllakes me feel n umb ." The
spectator had good reason to feel pressured. In the same discussion , an actor
cOlllplained about a previous performance: "1 was so disappointed in the
motel after our performance in Baltimore. The show was so good- a nd then
all these people showing thcir clroopy personalities!"27 Actors in participat­
ory theater can hardly help but judge the spectators' performances, sincc
the SLlccess of their own perfOlmances depends on them. The computer, by
contrast, has no real subjective presence. When yo u interact with Ü, it is nol
really a\varc of you, and despite a programmer's best effort to create an
illusion to the contrary, you know that it is not aware of you . I have proposed
that participatory computer interactive art is pcrjormalil'e but not a pcrjo/'m­
ing arlo This lllay be its greatest strength . Freed from the need to " perforlll ,"
an interactor may weJl be freer to do and to experience. This freedom, how­
eveL is gained through a devil 's bargain. The modernist ideal of presence ami
immediacy is achieved only by surrendering another ideal that the theatrica l
avant-garde of the 1960s pursued with equal passion: the establishme nt of
authentic human contact and el renewed sense of cornmunity.2~
Notes
Christine Tamblyn, "Co mputer Art as Conceptual A rt," / 11" .101//'110/49 (19 90 ):
253 - 256; and Timothy Binkley, 'The Quickening of Galatea: Virtual Tools ()T
Media," Art ]ourlw/49 (1990): 238.
2 This \Vork has been installed at a number 01' sites . M y description here is based o n
an installation at the Kitchen Video A nnex at Thread Waxing Space in N ew Yo rk
City , January 13-February I\. 1995.
3 1 discuss Ihe application of the type/token distinclioll lo th ealer in depth in "Whon
is the Play the Thing?: Analytic Aesthetics and Dramatic Theory," Thealre R"­
search Illlenwliol1o/ 20 (1995): 266 276.
4 Thi~ dcfinitjon is relativcly informal. A rigorous definilion would nced . al the ve r)'
lease to u n rad Ihe cxpressi(ln ~ " real-lime," " translales ," an d " sy~ lclllaliL'al l y
related lo Ih.:: in pUl. "
IOX
~ 1<111110 1\ 111 11.11,,1.'11 ¡¡lglll'S (1Il1cl1l.lV incillgly ¡lIm y vicw) Ihat ill Ihe;: case ot'lileralurc,
th e al!~ I(¡l'I I!J q hJccl is 1101 Ihe h:xt ilselr, bUI Ihe proccss 01' read ing lhal tex l. See
Ingard clI , 1lit' Ulcrory H'ork uf' Arl, Irans . George Grabowicz (Northwestern
Universily Prcss. 1(73), p. 336.
(¡ Insofar (lS interaclors beCOllle the focus 01' Iheir own aesthetic attention, they
function sirnultaneously as audience and perforrncrs. That is, they become an
é:ludience for their own performance. Intcraet o rs , then , perform for an audicncc
arter ull , and our original ,iustification rOl' denying thal participatory interactivc
art might be a perfonning art is gone. Nevertheless. I have deliberately defined the
distinction between performing a nd pe rformative mts so thal it remains workable.
slipping in th e condition that the performers and the audience consist of different
groups ofpeople , under the convietion that we are better otThaving an excessively
fine set of distinctions at our disposal than having one that is not fine enough.
7 Theodor Nelson , "The Crafting of Media." in S(~!il('({re,' [1I!órl11alÍol1 Tecltl1o/ugy:
11.1' Ne l1' Melll1ing./iJl' AYI , exhibition catalogue (N cw Y ork: Jewish Muscum , 1(70),
p. 17.
8 George Landow arglles that hypermedia embody the principies articulated by
poststrucluralist lheorists sllch as D e rrida and Barthes, giving rise lo texts th a l are
radically " o pen " a nd " writerly. " Tho ugh his description of hypermedia ís some­
times naively uto pic, he is surely right to draw parallels belween lhe literary Iheory
that ftourished in the 1970s and early 1980s aud the ideals of hypermedia, which
after a long incubation period finall y carne of age in the late 19805. George P.
Landow, Hypertex¡: [h e Convergencc (¿f' COl1lemporary Crilica/ T/¡cor,l' ol1d Tech­
l1%gy (Johns Hopkins U niversity Press, 1(92).
9 Stuart Moullhrop, " You Say You Want a Revo lution: H ypcrtexI and the Laws 01'
Media ," in Es'\"ays in Posll11oderl1 CU/lure , eds. Eyal Amiran and John Unsworth
(New York: Oxford Universit y Press, 1(93). p. 82.
10 Wi,t h intcractive role-playing games such as Mysl we do begin to see a n elelllent
of true performativily . The mode of intcractioD in such cases is co rnplex an d
ambiguous ·-the games often hover on lhe border betweell hypennedia am.I per­
formative interactivity- ·-and requires a much more earcful allalysis than I havc
space to provide here.
11 David Slllalley, Bridget Baird, Noel Zahler, and Don Blevins are currenlly devcl­
oping such él virt ual sculpture gallery al Connceticut Co!lege.
12 See Kendall L. Watton, Mim esis (JS ¡\,fake-Be/ieve (Harvard University Press,
1(90).
13 Specifically, you beco me what Walton cal'ls a reftexive prop. See Walton. p. 117.
14 In the 1960s, artists such as Alan Kaprow and Yoko Ono specifically designed a
number of conceptual works to enco ura ge speetators lo perceive Iheir aclions in
this way. [\Viii consider the relalionship between performance art in Ihe 1960s and
today's interactive compu'l er art toward the end of this papel'.
15 Insofar as we regard musie simpl y as being an aeoustic slruclure, we a re not
regarding music as a performing a rt. When 1 listen to a musical recording, I hear
music. In mal1y cases, 1 am o/so hearing a recording ora performance ofthe mLlsic,
Ihat is, an event that too k place in another place and time. Musicians, however,
often create Illus.ic in a reeording studio by laying down a large nUlllber ofseparate
Iracks, in which case the final musical work never existed as the auralc(Jmponent
of a sin gle performance event. A compOSer Illight evell program a computer to
create m usic directly , eliminating Ihe need rOl' any live performance. Sorne phi­
losophers have defincd m us ic entircly i_n terms of acoustic structure; others ha ve
malle the performance even ! integral lO thcir Ilotion 01' music. F or an extreme
exal11pk (JI' Ihe former type (JI' lheory , see Nelson GoodmaH, L.on¡;UaKeS ni Arl
> 1m
 ~ ll · III ¡\ ¡\ N Il r 1«' 11 ¡ ~ f1 1 ¡)l . ...

1Iluliall;! polis: 11 1Il:lo.cll, I 'J7h ); ¡'nI' IIn c... a lll ll ll.~ 111 11", I;¡ 1kt l )lrC, Wl: A mold IkTlcanl ,

"Ir' clII'/ HII.ljllg / '/l/c'/I1 ('lclIlplc 1II1iVl'r~il y I'I CS~ I 'N I)

1(, t 'oun.: lll'l'lIc's picte is dcscribcd in Alli sSi¡ Diallc SdlOcnreld. 'T owan l <In 1\1'11

I lu lll,U1 11I1\!rraCt.:: Intnacti ve Art in the Lí ghl 01' Postmodcrn Thco ry and ,, ~

Vchide rOl' Social Change" (masler's thesis, S U NY Stony Brook. 1994) pp 20 22.

1'1 1 <1m gralefullo Georgc Lewis for aJlowing me to examine sorne oUhe prQgrarn ' s INDE X

copious code.
1X Note the difrerencc bct\Veen saying that a work is "about its o wn ill ler8etion" <lnd

saying tha t it is "about the ract that it is interaetive" 1 am not ma king lhe sorl 01'

dail11 a bout performati ve interactions that crities such as Clcmelll Greenberg

made about abstraet expressionist painting; that is to Sély, 1 <1m not proposing

lhal performative interaclions refer sclf-eonsciously to th eir own medium. SOIllC

works may, bul not as a direcl consequence 01' either their interactivity 01' thcir

pcrrormativit y.

19 This relationship between work and performa nce holds even in the case ormost im­
A Day;n Ihe Lijé IV 345
Orienta l practiees I 304

provisatory forms, Commcd ia dell'arte players performed a limited set or' scenario$,
lhough they varied the dialogue. Jaa musicians typically perform pre-existing A Dicliollary o f' Mar.,i.l'1 Thoughl
simple/complex scale I 3 15- 16

111 337
styles 11 93

songs , improvising the arra ngement and addillg variations. And eveo il' they
A Lesson ;n Dead Lallguage II 114
theories 01' I 144

created an entirely ocw piece of music 0 0 the fty , and even ir that piece 01' musi c
A lv/a/1 's A Mall 11 272
transitional areas in I 3 12

were never played again, it would still be true that they playcd Ihe l11u.I'ic.
20 This statcment is in the prograrn notes for a performance at Connecticut College A ilfrH'ie Sta/' Has ro SIal' in BIC/ck (I/l{f
types and styJcs I 316

While 11 114
AClil1g ( R e) CO/1sidera' IV 22

on Saturday, Mareh 4, 1995.

A I'l'ell./de lo Dealh in Venice IV 319
Acling Wo/)/en I 234

21 The underlying disti nct ion here is belween what 1 call "lyric" and "dramatic"
A Vielvji'()//1 Ihe 1:."(lge IV 221
acting yo urselr IV 36 - 40

modes of interactiv ity, In the former, the computer becomes an extensiOll 01' the
A Win,er's Tale I 197
actors I 85, 297 8

performers themselves, augmenting their expressi vity; in the second, it enters into
the dramatic scene with the performers as an agent in its own right. A detailed ana­ I\alto, Alvar 11 396
as central fealu re oi' thcalre 11 177

Iysis or diflerenl kinds 01' perl'ormative interactions, however, must await anothcr Aaron 111 25, 30
as personages JI 163 ·-6

occasion; the project ofthis paper is to distingLlish performative from nonperform­ ABC Art IV 166
dehu ma.nizat io n 01' 11 17fI,

ative interactions and to cxplore some general fcatLires 01' performativity, ability and desirc, reconciling IV 25- 6
dispersed energics oi" .102

22 Quoted in I-Ioward Rheingold, Vil'LUal Realily (Ne\\' York: Simon and SchusteL Abrahams, R. D. I 12; 111 38.43, 53, 61,
extra-ord ina ry/virtullso techniq u~s

1991), p. 177, original italics. 64

11 230 2

23 This insight, or course, is one 01' eornerstones 01' Arthur Danto's philosophy o r a rt , Abramovié, Marina 11 185; IV 241 - 5
extras as I 31 I

hcncc the central importance Danto places on works such as Warhol 's Brillo Box Absencc
Illodel 01' Ihe \Vorld I 212

aesthetics of 11 111 ; IV 193

obligations I 2 12

in Th e Transfigural iO/1 of' Lhe C:olnlllonplace (Harvard U niversity Press, 1981 l.

24 Philip Auslander, " Live Performance in a Mediatized C ul t ure, Part Deux," theatre 01' 11 111
perspective of I 209

Thealre /I/1/'1l./a147 (1994): 3.

absencc ol' presence IV 307
substituting I 326

25 See Richard Schechner, I:nvironm en lal Thcaler (New York: I-Iawthorn Books, abstraet theatre 11 15
actor's bodies see body

1973), pp. 40 - 86. Aceonci , V. 11 185; 111 210; IV 191 ,

acls and utteranees I 95- 6

26 Joseph Roach has cxplnred the way thcories 01' acting have accou ntcd for, <lnd 207- 9, 215
Ad{/lI1, Eve, {//'Id the S erpenl IV 337

taken advantage 01', this I'act about human nature, See Roach, T ite Player'.1 accountability 111 187
Adorno, T. 11 254, 26 1; 111 222 -4, 393

Passio/1: Sludies in Ihe Scie/1ce o/ Acling (University ol' Delaware Press, 19i15),
acculturation proeess 11 3 17
Advaneed Resea reh Projects Ageney

I\cker. Joan IV 53
(AR PA) I 175- 6

especiall y chapo 5, "Second Nature: Mechanism and Organicism I'rom Goethe lo

Lewes," pp. 160 -- 194. Aekerman, Chantal 11 47
advertisernents I 331 - 2

A('/ ami Ih e Aelo/' 11 114

Aegisthus 11 280

27 Schechner, EI1I'irOl1menlal Thealer , p. 75 .

28 1 would like to Ihank Philip Auslander and Kendall Walton for their helpflll

act hcnneneutics 111 11

aeria 1 aets 11 20S

cOlllmcnts on earlier d rafts 01' lhis papel'.

ACT-UP IV 145,273
aerial bodyll 213 14

ACT-LJ PILA IV 273

aerial performance 11 213

acting I 302
aerial routines 11 208

and non-aclin g I 309- 23; IV 22

I\esehyllls I 304; 11 262

and perfo rma nce I 139

acst hctic assertions I 34ü

defi niti ol1 I 309,312

aeslhetic cOl1ll1lunicalion I 216 -- 18.254

cllcrgics uf I Z<J2
aesthetics I 278

in nJII I lil t.: I ' 1:1

pol it ics of 11 ~4 1 4

·l lll 111

 TNTl

all c¡,;lalil)J\ I 251 AII I: III1 )' IlI lbo t. Pt.:n.:y IV 27.1_ .4,1/1," " ,1// 1 11 11 1I ~ ASI'IR I': (J'hl..: A~~o c i;¡litln fllr Spillal
Afri¡,;a I 'J o; IV 23,26 alld)ltil,n IV 2(1 II pp a nttlJ ~ ,,1 Id ~II 'lli cH ,ioll I 142 III.lury Rcscarch , Reha hi lit;.tt io ll.
African-America n COllllllunities 111 195 Americal/ !lrl S il/tl' /C)()(J IV 1gl) Appia h. KWi lllll' Alltlwny 11 365 6 and Reintegration) 11 191
African-American culture I 349 American Constitut ion I 75 ; 11 125 Apthcker, B. IV 44, 50 asseveratioll I 346
African-Alllcrican fol klo re 111 176 American Embassy, G rosvclIl' r Squ,l re. Arafat , Yasscr 111 215 Association of COlllputing Machines'
African-Alllcrican gay males 111 174 - 6. London 1968 111 270 2 Aragon, Louis 111 263 Special Interest Group o n
179, 195- 6 American jeremiad 111 120 a rb itrari ness eomputer graphics (S IGGR APH)
African-American literat ure IV 75 American la w 11 125 concept 01' I 357 I 168
African-Ame rican modernism IV 76- 7, American Museum 01' Natural History degrees of I 358 assocíative matrix I 358
79- 80,90 ·1, 94 I 120 relative I J58 Athey, Ron 11 170
African-American theatrical America n theatre I 289 A rcades Projecl I 187 atom-bomb I 295
cxpcriments IV 94 a Illncsia 11 184, 280 archaeo logy 01' kn ow led ge I 201 Attali. Jacques 111 355, 357- 8, 361, 365
African-American women 111 195 AIl American Drel1/17 IV 14 archctypal primitive theatre 11 19 AT&T 111386 - 7
snapping with 111 184- 6 An Approach lo L ileralure 11 320 Arendt, Hannah 111 299 a udiencc I 115. 127, 129, 149, 164,
African-Americans 11 339- 40 , 342, J77; A n Ellemy o/ lhe Peopll' 111 294 - 5 Argentina IV 129 205 - 7. 217,284,288: 11.13, 24968;
111 17J-·95 An E vening o/Disgusling Songs amI a ristocraticlscxist/sadistie theatre 111 166
African art 11 404 Puky Images 11 67 11 32 and commun ity 11 25 1
African masks 11 404 Anamnesis J( 184 Aristotelean aesthetics 11 5 and performer I 348; 11 374
African performance 11 J59 Analomy oI Crilicism 11 320 Aristotle I 40, 77, '113, 159, 173. 282, appreciation 11 370
Afro-Amcrican society 111 45 Andersen , M. IV 47- 8, 6 1 291 ; 11 36, 158, 245; 111 4. 10, 118, as collective eomlllunity 11 255
Afier Bahe/l 190 Anderson, A. IV 366 258 , 273 . 279, 33~ 363; IV 147 as consumers 11 266
Agal11emnof/ II 262 Anderson , Benedict 1\1 380 Armies (JI lite Nighl IV 16 as dilemma 11 252
agency, notion of 11 382-94 Anderson. Laurie IV 319,351 - 2, 357 anns and armour IV 190 as first person plural 11 255 - 7
aggressivity 11 276 AIle/y Warhol: PorlrailS I!f Ihe 70s Arnie Zane D,lIlce Compan y n 196 as first person singu lar 11 253 ·-5
Agnew, D. Hayes 1 24 1 IV 202 Arn old, Thun nan I 82 as form 01' address 11 260
agraria n cullures 111 130 anecdotes from the past I 105 art as modeI for intersllbjecti ve relations
agriculturc 111 21 Angelou, Maya I 340; 11 377 and objecthood IV 165- 87 11 252
AIDS 11 165; 111 24; IV 145,273 Angels in Amerita 111 295 and theatre IV 323 · 31 as Illultiple sourccs 01' energy I .102
Ajanta style I 278 - 9 Angelus Novus I 305 degeneration IV 179-80 as performance I 365
Albce, Edward 11 99 anger 111 66 imitative concept 01' 11 5 as ratification of the socia l 11 275
Albright, Anll Coopcr I 3; 11 188 Anglim , Philip I 286 symbo lie act 01' I 79 as reprcscntative ideal of its own
alchcmy of the theatre 11 19 Anglo-Saxon I¡-¡nd eharters 11 129 within Illodernislll 11 175 representations 11 27 1
a1coholism animal park I 120--2 Art Workers' Coalition IV 194,201 as sanetioned voyeurs I 248
and squibs I 801 animals, play I 36 Artaud, A.17, 195, 291,295 ; 113- 15, as seco nd person 11 259
vs . literary gift I 79- 80 a nimatronic figures IV J77- 8 17- 20, 26- 8, 36,99, 110, 176, as sign 11 249- 50
Aldrich, Robert I 333 1'111110 Korr:nirw IV 402 183 - 4, 225 , 255 - 7.261,269, 276. as singular slIbject 11 252- 4
Aldridgc. Ira 11 166 Al1l1alr:s sehool 111 25 382; 111 202, 208 , 277 ·8; IV 93, as third person singular and plural
a1catory oceurrences 11 242 A nthony , Susa n B. I 238, 241 15J, 199, .107 , JI8-· 19, J21 II 258
Alcssi, Alito 11 203 ¡-¡nthropology 14 7,161 ; 111 108 - 33 Arthur M lIrray Studios 11 J36 capacity to hear 11 263 - 4
Alexander, J. IV 274 ant hropomorphism IV 167 articulated lang uage 11 27 disintegration 11 250
Alger. Horatio IV 63 A 11 Ligo/u' 11 226 articulation variables IV J69 70 drama 11 J05
AIi, Tariq 111 270 Antin , David I 363; IV 197 artificial rea lity I 169 giving a n 11 265
alicn¡-¡tion 11 29- JO. 140 a ntinomic character of perl'o nna nccs art istic, use of terlll I 128 imaginary and unirnagi nary 11 368 -71
theatre of 11 15 111 18 artistic performance I 127- 8 in dramatized society 11 269--8 1
"AII Revelation" IV 13 antinomic character of scientific arti stic practice and scientific inquiry in performance studies I 224--5
Allsop, Ric 11 119 knowledge m 17 1113 in the palm 01' the hand 11 273
Almquist, El izabeth IV 47 antipornography censorship 11 93 arts TIlusie<J1 performance I 375
Alperson , Philip IV 333 antipornography debate 11 58.. 64 fllnding IV 284 notion of 11 263
Allh usser, L I 143, 165; 11 40, 254; Antonio , Madame Adcline 11 209 success a nd survival of IV 179 ob liga tion to listen II 263 - 4
IV 155 Antoull , Richard 111 11 8 asexual momen tulll 11 280 pleasure of 11 237
Altiere, Charles IV 192 an xiety 11 245 Ashbery, John 11 269: IV 198 poetry readings I 344
AlI1ali , S. O. O. IV J4 Anzalduú . G loria IV 44 Asian Indian performance 11 J82 l)4 reaching out to 11 272

·'11'" ·111

rel"usallo lisIen I .\4()
rdatioIlship belwcen perfo nnl!l'l
woman and I 252
ritual partieipation 11 256
roles I 224
transformation performances I 274
unity 01' 11 253 - 5
use of term 11 249
West A frican 1137 1
see also spectators
audience atten tion IV 338
Audouard , X. 11 52
A uschwitz 1\1215- 16 , 220 - 1,229
Auslander, Philip I 11: 1\1 405 ;
382.407
Austerlitz. R. 111 39
Austin , J. L. 12.91.115, 155- 6,
178, 183, 201, 243 , 245; II 8R - 91,
93; 111 35-6, 3D, 333, 339-41;
IV 113 - 14.130, 145, 152
autoethnography 11198- 100
automaton IV 378
avant-garde IV 284
exploita tion of feminism 11 44
fem inist drama 11 51
folklore 11 351
performancc IV 221
performativity 11 359- 80
theatre 11 50
Avedon , Richard 1117
Aviles, Art hur 11 351-2
Azadovskii , M. 111 53
Babatunde 01atunji 111 367
Babbitt. M.ilton IV 345 - 6
Babcock. Barbara 11 207
Rabcock-Abraham s, B. 111 39.42
Bach, J. S. I 373; IV 337. 341
Backer, H. IV 269, 271
Bacon. Francis 111 224 --5
Bacon, W. I 248 - 50: \11 138. 143
Baer, N. V. N. 111 345
bag lady imagc I 232- 3
bag lady of performance I 246, 255
Bagehot , Walter 11 309 ; 111 256
Bagwell , Orlando 111 243
Bahamas 11140
Bahn , B. I 252
Baker, Housto n IV 87
Bakhtin, M . 11 95: 111 76 , 79 , 94 --5,
99 _ 100, 206 , 275.279
Bal , M . \11 237 - 8. 244
11-¡ h ID\,
1ll'II1I V III III lI ig Un ll!:l (Ir rh: rl'" nll;J nce I 1Xj
Bul:l /s. 1l~'I¡¡ IV 104
ami hll l ~', II I I l!l' 111 '1 Big Scic nce 111 20 1, 13
O.des , R~, berl .... IV 52
Scllcl.: hIl CI'S view 01' I 120 vs. Little Sciencc 111 22
Balibar, Etienne \11341
behav iou ral ideol ogy 111 95 Bilbow , Marjoric I 32930
Ralinese 11 28
beha viourisrn III 3 bilingualislll 11 344
ballet 11 349
Behn , A p hra III 315-17 Bill CO.l'hy S/¡Oll' 11 344
ballroom dancing n 339
Being ami NOlhingne.l's 11 290 binary genders an d heterosexual
Banff Cyberconf IV 395
Reit Hashoa h Museulll ofToleranee contraet IV 102- 7
Baraka. Amiri IV 74- 6. 84 - 7. 91
III 236, 240 Binkley, Timothy IV 396
Barba, Eugenio 1 288, 300- 1, 303;
11 224, 226-7, 230 - 3.. 382, 384. 387 Bekhterev, Vladimi r m 347 - 8 biocultural ecosystcm IJI 130
belief in spectator or performer I 316 biological eriteria IV 50- J
Barber, Karin 11 375
Bell , E. I 219, 232 biological differences IV 51, 53
Barbic an d iheji \1 361 - 5
Bellmer, Hans 11 25 biomechanies 111 345, 348
Barenbo im. Daniel rv 340
Belmondo. Jea n-Paul I 328 Birrin ge r, Johannes IV 221, 356
Barish , Jonas IV 92
rv 22 L
Bark er. F. 111 307
BelJllont, N icole 111 126 !3inh o( Tragedy 11 275
Ben-Amos, D. 111 43 , 54 Black Arts M ove mcnt IV 76-7, 79-80,
Harker. Howard IV 360
Ben-Yehuda, N. IV 271 91,93 - 4
Barncs, Djuna 11 115
Benamou , Michel 11 25 black consciousness IV 75
Barnum and Bailey U 210
Benedict, Ruth 111 124 black eulture 11 343
Rartenieff, Irmgard 11 353
Benjamin , Adam 11 197 8 black dances 11 341
Barthcs by Bar/hes 11 270
Benjamin , W. I 117, 187,305 - 6; 11 361; black liberation IV 75
Barthes, R. 1139, 141,143, 145.325:
\1 35, 227, 388 , 397; \11 87- 8, III 293 ; IV 270, 325 - 7, 330, 366, Black I1lcn IV 60. 68
218 - 19, 222, 268, 322, 339-40; 369, 375, 378 Blaek I'v10untain College, Nonh
Benllett, John 111 129 Carolina \1 121
IV 231, 326
Bennett. S. 11 95 BJack Parliamellt IV 82
Bascom, W. 111 34, 38
Bcnsman , J. \JI 62 Black Po!!/ry in America IV 78
Bataille , George 111 397
Bcnston, K. W. I 15; IV 74 black rap music JI 342
Bateson , B. \11 39
Bentley , E. 11 315 , 319-22; 11\ 267, 307 Black womcn IV 46, 60, 67-8
Bateson, Gregory I 178, 195 ; 111 35
Benveniste, E. 111 323 Blackledge, Robin IV 223
Bauleship Potemkin 11 305
Baudrill a rd, J. 11 50, 275 , 280,367,397; Bereovitch. Sacvan 111 120 Blaeklllur, R. P. 11 319. 324 5
\U 88,92-·3,207- 10,2 13,220,229, Berenba urn, M. 111 238 - 9, 242 blaekness
268 , 380 ·- 1, 394 - 8,406; IV 155, Berger, I\. JI. 11 87 Barakan vision 01' IV 83
307-8.310,314-16,318, 320- 1. Bergvall , Caroline 11' 119 performing IV 74 - 96
Berkeley, Bishop 11 185 pol ymo rphic movem e nts of IV 76
356, 359- 61
Berkcley , Busby IV 299 privileged notion 01' IV 78
Baudry , Jean-Louis \11 312
Bauman, R . I 12,217: \1132, 38,43 - 4, Berlant, Lauren 111 383 vision of IV 84
Ber1in Wall m 220, 2.81 - 2 Blackton , J. Stllart IV 375
53 , 64. 187
Rcrlyne, Daniel IJ 229- 30, 232 Blackwell , Emery 11 203--4
Bavarian Soviet III 260
Beny, R. 11 99 Blade RUllner I 169
Baxandall' Lec I lO: 111 253 , 276
betrayal , relationsh,i p of 11 7 Bla kc. W i 11 ia milI 00; '\11 127
Razin, André IV 310
BCIH'een /he Act.\' 11 269, 271 - 2,280 Blau , H. 14.298; n 50, 249. 263, 269,
Beaumarchais 111 262
BClIveen Thealer and Al1/hropology 285,369; 111 202.. 7, 209-11, 307 ,
Beek, J ulian 11 110-1 1
I 120; IV lOS 421; IV 22 , 153,3 12
Bcckcr, A. I 199 -200
Beuys, J. 111 224- 5: IV 238 4 1, 243, 245 Blin , Roger 11 16
Becker , H. S. I 13; 111 149- 72
Bhabha, Homi 11 353 810c11, Fe1ix IV 315
Beckerman, Bernard IV 32
Bharata 11 246 !3odies T/wt Mal la 111 374; IV 114
Beekett, S. I 286, 303: n 88. 100, 110,
176, 261 , 275, 289 - 90; UJ 202, 205, Bharata Natyam 11 195 bodily excess and inappropriatcncss
224 - 5; IV 310. 383, 388
Bha/'{/ I hanalya/l1 11 390 1252
Bh.. rucha, R. 11 87 body
Reekett. T homas I 196, 219
Bhavani, Ku m -Kum IV 45 <!l:tiol1 in circ us performance 11 212
becomi.n g-other-wise 111 75 · 107
Bible I'roja' / I 297 air of m ys tery 11 185
Becquer, M arcos 111 176, 195 - 6
Bidlo, M ike IV 31 8 analysis 01' presence on stage 11 157 74
Becthovcn, L. IV 340
,11 ,1 11"

 I N ni
as COllllllcntator 11 1(Ji .1
as group represc ntati vc 11 16b 7
as middlc(wo)man/body as vesscl
1248 - 50
as organic congrucnec between
performer and text I 249
as personage 11 163 -· 6
catego ri cs of 11 210 . 11
commlJl nieatio n of meaning 11 59
dancers' 11 161
ex terior 11 168
external au thority ti 160
in dance 11 334
in law's text 11 125 - 7
in Illodcrn performance 11 175- 87
in ora l interp retation I 248
in performance I 250, 254; IV 243 - 9
in terior 11 162
internal engageme nt 11 160
language I 345
manipulation of IV 207- 8
objectifica ti on of I 248
ofk nowledge 11 184
ontological complexity 11 159
presence of II 183
public/private distinctions I 252
relaxation 11 161
rcpresen tation of 11 58
role of II 180
sensation of 11 169- 7 1
socio-historical 11 166 --7
tension 11 161
t\Vo-fold problem 11 185- 6
see (/Iso f1csh
bod)' art 11 178
body-as-objeet 11 182
bod y-as-sign JI 182
body-text I 300
Boehme, lak ob 111 127
Bogart, Anne JI 99
Bogosia n, Eric JI 159 · 60, 163
Bohm, David 111 5
Bohr IH 10
hoile al/X il!usiol1s 11 225
Boltan, lay David IV 159
Bolton , R, IV 276, 278
Bonapartism JII 392
Bonsoi,., Dr. S chol1' II 60
Book o/ Genesis 11 129
Rook o!Joh I 297
Rook o{ L cviticus 11 129
BOQth by, Fra nees lit 316
11(,
~ IN IlI t \:
13\l rd \1, Sll ~il lI IV 114 I!I'I'ol.:;, I¡ n l ~ lw " 1 177 ('apck brothcrs IV 302
BO rll stC IIl , <.i. 11 '>7 Uwu ks, K. I 252 C A PITAL IV 240
Bos nia 111 213, 22 1 Rrooks, P. 11 254 5: IV 153 ('apila/ III 377 8, 384
Boston Tea Pa rty 111 116 Brower, Rcuben IV 12 Ca pita ljsm 11 29
Bou illaguet , Pie rre JI 236 Brown, James IV 75 and cOlllmunity 111 384
Bou issac, P. 11 20S Bmwll , Trisha IV 326 and multid imensiona l socia l relations
boundary tnlnsgressions IV 269 - 88 Brustein , R. 1131 3- 14,3 17·-19, 321 111 384 - 92
Bourdicu , P. 1148, 157 . 165: 11 3 35 ~ 6, Buchanan, Na ncy IV 257 Capo, K. E. I 222, 233
368; 111 80- 2, 85 , 87 , 92, 97, 2 19, Buchmanism 1 8 1 Ca rbol1, M , 1 7; 1179, 87 , 163; IV 33
222,375 , 382 Büchner, G. 111 260; IV \)3 Caro, Anthon y IV 167 , 177-8
Bourdon, David IV 202 Buddhislll 11 28 Carr, C. 11 62; IV 274
BOllrne , Jenny 111 242 Bullins, Ed IV 76 Carter, K. I 222, 233 , 236
Bowlby, Rachel IV 259- 60 " Bunday" 111 40- 1 Cartesia n approach to ll1etaphysics III 5
Bowles, Samuel 111 392 Buñuel IV 208 Ca rtesia n coord in ates 111 6
Bradbrook , Professor 11 303 Burden. Ch ris 11 178 Ca rtesian phi losophy 11 126- 7
Brahmanism I 58 Burger, Peter 11 397 Ca rtesian phys ics 111 7
brai.n research 111 9 BlIrke, E. 111 52 , 254- 5, 258 , 263 Case, Sue-Ellcn I 14, 234; 11 390;
Bra ithwaite, Wil1iam Stanley IV 12 Burke, K. 1 72 , 195 , 197,216; 111 39- 40, m 334; IV 141
S raun, E. 111 344 - 5 115 Cassirer, Ernst 1 197 , 216
Bravma nn , R . IV 26, 28 - 9 burlesque I 252 Castelvetro, L. 11 8 1
Brazil Fado IJ 282- 4, 295 - 7 Bllrma I 69 Castiglio ne 111 257
Bread and Puppet Theatre JII 277 Burnh alll , Linda IV 265 casting 111 154, 1589
Brecht, B. I 11 , 220, 264 - 5, 28 1, 284, Burns, E. 1II 36 Cast le, Vernon and Irene 11 339
287 , 304,335; 11 26, 28 - 9, 31,91 , Burton, Richard 11 99 cast ration 11 34: 111 325
161, 176- 9,1 81- 3, 236- 8, 241 - 3, Burton , Scott IV 19 1 Fre udian tileory 11 45
259- 61 , 269 , 27 1- 3, 280- 1, 368 - 9, Burton, Tim IV 365 catharsis 1 292 , 295 , 306- 7; 11 184
399: 111 267 - 8, 277- 8, 305 - 14; Butler,J.lll , l ), 109, 155 - 6,165; calhartic poe!ry 1 78
IV 93, 153 --4, 157 , 213 , 307- 8,313 11 88, LJ3 , 210- 11: UI 268 , 339, 34 1, Catholic C hurch 11 138
Brechtian theory 111 305 - 19 374 - 7, 397; IV 97 , 114,144 - 51 Calholic Encyclopcdia 11 138
Breer, R obert IV 294 Catholic rituals IV 236
Breitenb usb dance jam 11 202 Cable News Netwo rk (CN N) 11 292 Causey, Ma tthew I 4; IV 38 1
Brendel, Alfred IV 344 - 6 Caenorlwhdilis elegans 111 24 O rvcll, StaDley IV 316
Brenner Yule 11 163 Cage, John 11 JO, 264; IV 228, 23 1, 329, =D-ROMS IV 399- 400
Breton , Andre 111 202 354 Ced /¡ 'eSI pas LI//e pipe 1 117
Breuer, L. 11 11 7, 399- 400, 404; 111 298 Cah ill , Spencer E. IV 57 Ce lebrity R ights Act 111 410
Brewe r, Ma ria Minich 11 50 Ca kewa lk 11 339 Central America III 131
" bricolage" , pleasure of 11 240 Ca lisher, Hortense I 246 Centra l ln st itute fo r the Scien tific
Brighf TUI/es lvfusic Corp. 1'. H arris(J/lgs Od ie, Sophie 111 320- 1, 334 Organization of Labor and thc
!lIusic, Lid 111 406, 4 15 calling out names 111 67 Mechanization o f Man (TsIT)
Bristol , Michael 11 87 , 96 ca l1ing sOllleone out 111 177 111 345 6
British Film Inst itllte I 139 Cambrid ge ant hropology 11 330 Centre for Comempo rary Cultural
Brilish Live Arl: Essay s a/1(/ Cambridge University 11 326 Studies IV 155
Documenlalions IV 224 drama 11 303 - 12 ceremony( ies) 1 162; 111 46 , 126, 128
British Ordinary Langllage 111 35 Camera Lucida 111 322 Certeau , Michel de 111 2 14, 2 19 20,222,
British South Africa Company 111 11 3 Call1pbell , K. 1 239 224 , 235, 245, 288
Bromige, David I 347- 8 Call1pbell , Pa ul I 2 16. 252 Ceylon I 69
Bronfman, Edga r 111 2 16 Cam pbell , p, N. I 2 17 C haikin , Joseph 11 110:. IV 310
Brook, P. I 220, 300, 302; 11 110, 232, ca ncer 111 24 charnber theatre 111 167
400, 404: 111 260; IV 212 Candid Camera 1 109 C hamula 111 4 1- 3, 63
Brookh aven Na tional La borato ry 1II t 5 Ca n(/oco 11 197- 9, 201 C haney, Lo n I 286
Brooklyn Acade my of M usie 11 346 :anCtli , Elias 11 272- 3 C hanning, Catole 11 163
Bnloks, Clcanlh 11 31 9 20 Cól nn ()II , I yrw Wc h<!r IV 44 C hapl in , C'h a rlie 111 354, 366, 409, 412
111
 ('¡',,/Jlill 11. ,' /II/ (/(Iu /' 111 -lO') ( 'Ii",LiI" l{ vlIlIHI I 2hX \ col kd lV\' 1\'vc l,lI lon I /-t CIJ III (1 l1 tCIS IV 195 ,110
L:haraL:1L:r
cÍ m'llI:I I 1 \\1 1-t 2; 11 44 5
'\l lli l\ ~ , 1', I I IV 4-1 'i , -17 ~,)() 1, (, 1, as thcatrL: I IRO 1

anal ysis 01' I 149

,w d 1'c l1Ji ni ~ 1II 11 .'17
(,7 'omp/l 1('/",\' (/.\' 7'l,eolre I 172

and aL:tor's body 11 159 ·- 60

history 01' IV 29 1
('O l/ /(' ::'/J}' lI'illl Me IV J03 ,omtc, Auguste 111 124

and perform ance 11 161

see also film
comcdy 11 36
C ha racter Shop IV 372
characterisation I 142
comie and play I 40
C ha rles 11 I 235
Cornmedia dell ' Arte I 173; 11 10
C hütelet Theatre 11 239
commentary, by acto r's body 11 161 ·-3
C haucer, Geoffrey 111 140
C'haud huri , Una I 10- 12; 111 293
C heeve r, Jo hn 111 142
Cheklwl' 11 116
C hekh ov. Antol1 1 263,316; 11 116,3 11 ,
327; 111 295 - 8
C hénier, Marie-Joseph 111 263
C hcrn of1', J, M . 11 366. 370; m 362 ·-4
Ch icago 111 160
L:hiId perfo rmcrs 11 213
child-play I 49
children's performances of games 111 83
chi ldren's storics I 345
C hiJds. Lucinda 111 9
C hin o Daryl I 8; 11 114 - 15, 395
Ch ina I 28, 30. 46: 11 348; 111 28 1 5
dance in 11 348
C hinese acrobatic traditions 11 349
Ch inese ballet 11 348
Chinese choreography 11 349
Ch in ese ideograms 11 13
Chincse Opera 11 348
Chinglep ut I 60
eh il Cha l Wilh. CII/'/Ilelilll 11 65
Chitty, Elizabeth IV 207- 9, 362
ch lo ri ne-36 in urine 111 16
C hodorow, N. 11 45
non-linear phenomenél 111 78
Chomsky 111 80-- 1
tu rnin g amI reversing 01' 111 87
C hong, Ping 11 401 - 2
USe of tcrm 111 79
C hopin. Frederick I 130
choreography IV 11 5
and performance IV 120
Iytemnestra 11 262, 266
cmbodying the socia l IV 119- 24
C ND 111 270
theorctical moves IV 11 5- 19
Cocteau IV 297
Choreological Laboratory of the
R u$sian Acadcmy 01' A rtistic
Condiliol1ed Rej!exe,\' 111 347
circus IJ 207- 15
L:i rcus acts 11 208
confessiona l efficiency I 78
ci rcus a rtists 11 2 J 1- 12
Conjeeveram I 60
civic events I 16 1
Connell, R, W . IV 52
L:ivil rights I 348
Civil Rights Movemcnt IV 193
CIVIL lI'arS 11 278
Civilization and lis DisconlenlS JI 276
civilization-as-castratio n 11 36
civilizations, studv of I 57
Cixous, Hélene 1 -141 - 3, 232 , 236.242,
253; 11 4\ 47. 50, 262 3, 266, 291;
IV 258- 9
Clark . Danac IV 156
Clark , Ebun 11 375
Clark, S, H. 1 243
class, categoriza tion on basis of IV 61 5
clélSS di ffe rentia ti on IV 386
class dimensiono cu lluréll tranSlllission
11 342
class domination 111 259-·60
class roles IV 53
classic drama 11 38
c1assica l represental ion 11 9
c1assism IV 44
Clement, C. I 253
Clevcland Ballet 11 191 - 4
Clifford , Jam es 11 95, 97
Clinton. President I 340
c1 0aeal thco ry I 78
elosed perfo rrna nees 11 223
c10sure 01' representation 11 3--24
c10thing in stage functions I 3 10
c10ud chamber 111 26
Oo ud N ine m 308; IV 149
ri go urist's reproach I 33 1
use 01' I 327
comm utation test I 144, 324- 37
Coffin , J udge 111 41 1
Co hen, S. IV 272
and hUlllou r in seienee 111 28 conference papers I 345 6
cOllllTJc ntatin g bodiL:s 11 168 Conquergood, Dw ight I 12,22 1, 223,
col11l11ess lll 63 4, 67- 72 233,252; 11 94 6; In 134, 150, 167
commod ity conseienee II 28
multivalence of 111 377- 83 co nsciousness
status-o identity-, and community­ cruelty as 11 14
conferring aspects IIJ 38 1 versus unconscious LI 35
common sense 111 81 - 5 consurnerislll 111 374
Commune I 288 consurnplion 111 372- 404
commun icability I 142 Contact Improvisation 11 192, 201 ,
wmmu nieat ion 11 16 2035
aesthetics I 216 -- 18, 254 Contcmporary A rts Ccntcr, New
narrow and broad scnsc I 98 Orleans 111 295
n<lturalistic strategy of I 83 eontemporar y psychoanalytic t heory
traditional and nar row sense I 98 11 39
verbal art as 111 35 Con lell1po/'ory Theo lrc Rel'iell' IV 2 19
eOlllm unicati on and information L:on text I 146
teehn ologies IV 352 contrary motives 111 64
comlll unicat ion events I 217 Con 1rihUl iOIl cril i!fue de I'écollolllic
L:ommunicative bchaviour 111 65 Jioliliqie 11 29
L:Omlll unieativc cornpetcnce I 20 1 cont ro lled creat ive a ut ononw 11220
comlllunicative in terpretive theatre conventio na l wisdolll 111 g l ':;
11 16 conversation
cOlllmunicative means, etie li st of 111 39 <tnd ideology 111 96
communicative praetiees 111 80 as micropr:lcticall1ows and
Com munist Part y 111 283 mierophysical traces 111 76 ~()
community 111 152 inherently ideologieal lll 95
and audience 11 25 1
and capitalism 111 384
and legal gesturc 11 133- 4
cornmulati on conversation dialogics 111 100
definitio n I 325 cOllversatiolla l micropracticcs 111 85- 7,
89. 97- 8
conversationa l performance 111 75 - 107
cOllversatiollal rules 111 81
defini ~ i o n I 324 cOllversatiollal turn-taking, politiei:ll­
use of I 325 ..6 cconomics of 111 85 - 8

Sciences (RAKhN) 111 346 Co hn, Roy 11 87, 165 comparative rcligion I 47 Cook, Albert 11 2.78

Christ ian lands I 28 cokl WéI r technologies I 183 corn partmcntalization 11 175 Cooper, Gary I 327

Christian rituals IV 236 Co lcn , Shellee I V 61 - 2 wrnpe tence in performance 111 189 Copeau's im provisations 11 10

C hristi anity 11 19 C'oleridge, S. I 84 competition I 276; 111 2 I 2 Copeland , Roger I 4; IV 306

ch u rch serviccs I 345 Colleano, Con II 210 in scientifie aCl ivity IIJ 17 Cop land, Aaron IV 346

C hurchill. Ca ryl m 308, 310: IV 149 Co lica no. Winnie 11 209 computer graph ics figures IV 369- 7 L copyright 111 405 - 28

Cico urel 111 52 collecti ve life, dynamics of 1 201 374,377 Copyright Act 1976 111 405

4 1X ,11lJ
 I' N n r ~X

( '''"II'¡J k 111 ·1 ~' I II II II , il l ' 11'. ,.,:,lIlp I ?4:­ dall~'t' lI \\.\ '1K I ) , I VY K . 11 (,7 IV 27.~
'·"Ii'\ )rt"¡¡ II \I\.'~"II ~·": JI 1(.1 nlltlll ld <' II I II 'S " .114 ;11)( 1 d i ~;;l hil i t )'
11 1')0 Do WSOII. /\ . 11 X7
~l' vr ll 1IlI'IllS (Ir 11 1"1/ 74 clIltur;1I 1't:1I1i nis! performaJlce 11 'iX (A dcscx uali/alion 11 .\I() I )¡oa/illl/ll (i/UIIC!; 11 162
coqmrt!a lily. rorlll~ ,)1''' 159 eulturallcadcrs 1 70 dis;lbled body in 11 lXX 20(¡ de Ballellle. Roberl n 135
correcti ve practiccs 1 105 cultural lllcdium I 66 ·8 rorlllS 01' 111 362 de Beauvoir, S. 1 249: IV 46 , 51. 97- 100,
Corsianos. Marilyn IV 269 language as 1 67 hybridiza lion 11 349 50 102
Cosen1.ino. Donald J. IV 35 - 6 cultural memory JI 258 in China 11 348 Debord, G . IJ 285 ; 111 207,211.. 273 - 5
cosmic nLy studies m 16 cultu ra l pattern of Indian civilization in Tllovcment study 11 336 de Certeau, M _111 79, 82 , 87, 89- 93 ,
t:ostullle continuulll 1 310 1 68- 9 marginalized 11 334 98
Couh, Tony 111 266 cultu ral performances I 154; 111 174 recontextuali zation 11 349 -50 deconcealment 1 127
counter-efficient:y 1 78 a nalysis 1 62- 6 sym bolism 01' 11 346 deco nstruction n 35, 53; IV 2 15
Court:hesne, Luc IV 403 Great T rad iti on 1 57 - 71 see also chorcography and feminism 11 48
Cour.l'e in Ceneral Lingui.l'fics I 354; institutional settings I 63 Dance Critics Association H 192 ap plieation 11 93
111 340 place of 1 62- 3 dance manuals 11 337 poe!ry readings 1 351
Courtes , .1. H. 11 221 units of observatioll 1 60 ·-2 dance performance I 359 women 's performance mt IV 253 - 4
Coward_ Noel 111 94 use of term IV 230 dance research 11 334 deeonstructive philosoph y LI 44
CO)!ofe: 1 Like Ameríc(f 1.11/(1 Americ(f cu ltural policy-ma kers I 64 dance scholarship 11 335 - 6 deconstructive techniques " 35
Like.l' M e IV 238-41 cu ltural practices I 162 dance studies as feminism's other De Costa 111411 - 13
nacking someone's f¡¡ce 111 177 cultural production UI 381 IV 125 9 Deer Park IV 13, 15
Craig, Edward Gordon 11 81 cultural revolution 11 36, 348 dance styles Deelz. S. I 217
Craig. Gordon " 176, 179 --80 cultural specialists 1 63- 5, 67 a p propri a t ion/t ra n sm ission/m igra t ion defamiliarization I 127
Cranat:h, Lucas IV 337 cu ltural studies I 111 , 157: 11 332, 01' 11 338- 40 defcnsive practices 1 105
Crease, R . P. 1 126-30; 111 11 314 58 hip hop 11 342 de Gaultier. J ule, I 129
creative thinking 1 128 and dram a 11 324-32 transportation of 11 346 de G roat, /\ndy IIJ 9
Creep IV 124 institutionalization 01' 11 13 1 DanceAbility workshops 11 202 de Heusch, Lue 111 114
C rémieux_ Benjamin 11 8 politics of I 160 DanceBrazil 11 350 - 1 dehuma nization 01" acto r 11 178
critical analogue 1 86 predicated 111 75 Dallce/1/aga:ine 1I 19 I deh ul1l a nization of theatre 11 176
critical dissent " 310 cultural theatre 11 16 dancers D cla rgy. J. H . 111 44
critical onto logy m lOO cultura l traditi on III 112 bodies of 11 168--9 D elattre, Rolan u IH 126
niticism 1 76 (;Ultural transformative modes 111 131 physically disabled 11 191 de Lauretis. Teresa 11 37 , 42- 1. 2Xg;
and drama" 319- 24 cultura l transmission dancing spirit 11 194 IV 11 1- 14, 128- 9, 143 --4, 254, 2(12
in nelV theatre " 30 dass dimension 11 342 Dancing Wheels 11 191. 194 Deleuze, G . 1 184; 11 114; 111 21 :l, 2 1().
C roce, B. " 81 2 dialectics 01' lJ 140- 1 Dandeker, Celcste 11 197, 200 221
Cronenberg, David 11 63 Culfure 11 325 - 6 Danes. Claire 11 1(JO Dell'Artc School 01' Blue Lakc,
cross-dressing " 87 culture Danton III 262 - 3 Ca li fornia 111 295
racia 1 " 346 and plays 1 39; 11 3 13- 33 Danloll's Deafh 111 260 Del o ria. Vine Jr. 111 134
Crow, Jim 111 174 prime role 11 40 Dork Ride 11 1 13 Delphy, Christine 111 379
Crowds ond POll'er " 272 suh specie IL/di 1 39 Darnell, R. 111 39. 51 Delsarto-eloeu!ionary display 1 242
Crowley, D. J. 111 39- 41 Cuna 111 46 - 7 Dars/¡all 11 387 Delfo 01' Vel1llS 1 235
cruel representation " 8 Cun nin gham , IV!erce 1 185; IJ 30, 192 Dartington 11 120 I de Marginy, Ch ri s 11 19R
cruelty Cunnison, lan 111 114 Darwin , Charles 111 258: IV 93 de Marinis. Marco 1 3; 11 82, 219- 22 ,
as consciousness 11 14 Curry , S. S. 1 243 Darwinism 111 3: IV 5 226
as net:essi t y " 10 Curse or f/¡e Slarving Class 11 168 Dasenbrot:k, Reed Way 1 342 Deming, Robert H. 1I 284
festival 01' 11 16, 18 Curtis, Bruce 11 202- 3 Dasgu pta, Ga uta m 111 3 Deming, W. E. 111 347 , 349
primitive thelltre and 11 20 Cushman , Charlotte I 236, 239 Daug/¡fer (jIlhe Ni/e 11 403 Dell10 Mmle/ IV 362
theatre of 11 3-·24 cyber-puppet ry IV 368 Davenant , W illi am 111 316 de Montgomcry, Roger 11 135
Csikszentmiha lyi. M. 1 268 cyberspaee 1 169; IV 401 Davidson , Donald 1 361 DeI1lIJI1IJloKY: ,I'ome ¡//()/./KltfS [olvard {/
Cu hi sm 11 404 Cycleror Wafer Buckels IV 234 Davis, A. IV 44, 67 science oI c!wos ill /'ecel/I
culinary theatre " 280 Davis, M, 1I , 111 406 , 411 /m/im1l(/l1ce IV 223
cultun Ll activity , slllal1-scale I'orrns Dada I V 157
Davis, R on 111 277 DeMott. Benjamin IV 61- 5
I 140 Dak ar. Seneg¡¡ 1 11 344
Davis, Salllllly Jr. 1 203 - 4 Den by. F dwin IV 3
cultural capital and d rama 11317- 19 Da ly, M 'l ry 111 29 5
Dav is, 1 rae y 11 212 I1CIlClIVC , Calherine 11314

420 I:.! I
 I r~ 111 ',\ I N II EX

Iklllll:r, ('harks I l.lO dill cn:IIl'1!

d OCII pllpp..:ll )' IV 1M, dr:llllalic pc rs pcctivc I Xl
dl.:lIsity "f siglls IV ~ 2(' :tllll lCllIiniSI Ihcory IV 45
I)olall J ill 1 7: " ~7 , .t!h , .NO : IV 260 dralllatic specdl 11 311
Dcn\lcr Centcr Theatre Compan)' cond ition of IV 199
l)ollilllorc, J, 111 107 dralllatic studies 11 88
IV 309 embodying 11 334 58
do rnillant practiccs 111 92- 3 drama tic theatre 11 36
Der lJimll/e/ ¡¡ha Berlin I 304 in verted and difference maintaincd
dOT1lination 11 30 drarnaturgic analyst. model 01' 1 212
Dcrrida, .1.17, 139,1 4 1, 143 , 146- 7, " 46 e/omple regare/e" 43 dramaturgic approach to social reality
155 - 6, 165, 183 - 4, 352, 355 ·- 6, new understanding IV 42·- 73 Donne IV 9 1 203 - 14
362; 11 3, 35, 39, 49 50, 83 - 4, 90, problem of IV 45. 65 - 9 Do ra y. Bernard 111 359· 6 1 dramaturgy
98 . 111 - 12,114,117, 250 - 1.. 378: venial of IV 45 Dostoevsky 111 95- 6 definition 11 219
111 268,3 10. 323, 339--41 , 419; digital animation 14 Double. screen-test IV 38 1- 94 of protest, rnethodological
IV 127-9, 134, 148, 158, 195, digital culture IV 382 double articulation 01' structure and considerations 111 272- 4
199 201 , 209, 21 1, 30~ 8, 310. dilettan tislll I 252 practicc 111 97 of pro tests 111 266 - 92
313 - 14.316,318.321 Dill, B. T. IV 44, 67- 8 Douhle Helix IJI 29 01' radical activit y 111 253 - 65
desacral izing theatrc 11 14 Dilthey, \\'. 111 110, 121 ·- 2, 13 1 Douglas, Mary 111 139 spectators 1I 219- 35
de Sade, Marquis I 293 /)il1/1(-'r Tah/e AroUI1e/ I 117 DOl\'11 in I he Re(: Room IV 2 11 drcallls
de Saint-Denys, Hervey 11 13 DiOllyS LiS in 69 I 276 , 288 , 320 1: 11 99 drama" 86 · lOS iJ1egibility ami magnetic fascination
Desca r1 es 111 5 7 directori al conventions 11 93 act ive im agcs JI 309 or 11 13
Design in g Technology (exh ibiti on) disability ambivalent status " :130 representation in 11 12
1 171 and dance 11 190 analogy for social life 1 195 theatre of 11 13
dcsirc 11 61 , 276 - 8 in professional dance 11 202 and criticislll " 3\ 9- 24 Drewal, M. T. IV 22, 29
and ability, reconciling IV 25 - 6 disabled body and cultural capita l" 317-- 19 Dreyer, Ca rl IV 3 10
and pleasure 11 247 gender in 11 197 ami cultural studies 11 324 " 32 f)/'{},\'o/iI¡ilo 111 24
dynarnics of 11 57 -75 in dance 11 188 - 206 a nd dialectic 1 74 Drucker. PeteJ' IV 339
Desmond , JélTle C. I 16: 11 334 disappearance as history 11I2UI - 12 audience " 305 Dufrenne, Mikel l 117- 18. 125
Desmoulins, Camille 111 262 disciplinary society I 149 historical status 11 317 Dukes. Ashley 11 82
Dcsperate Optimists IV 382 discourse 111 97 in dramatised socicty 11 303 12 Dumb Ty pe 11 402
detachment and difference 111 142 politics of 1 153 - 67 literary discussion of 11 87 DUlIcan. Hugh 11 253
dell.\" ex machina I 304 sociological sidc of 111 96 materials I 75 Duncan , !sauo ra 111 346
deviance I 194; IV 269 - 88 discovery process. event-character 01' performance-oriented criticism of Dundes, 1\. 111 42
theorics of IV 271 4 111 26 H 86 Dunnock, Mildred 111 253
Dewey, John 111 135 discursive practices 111 100 presentation " 307 D upee , Frederiek IV 20
de Wit , Maria IV 222- 3 discursive production of oppositiona l prob1ems of " 3 11 Durang, Christopher 11 115
Dhairyam , Sagri IV 157 mOVCT1lcnt 111 390- 2 representations '11 308 - 9 Duras , Marquerite " 47
Dia/¡e/l¡ VarillliOI1S IV 340 disenchantment of the world " 175 ritual theory 01' I 195 D urbin , M. 111 :l4
dia lectical dancing partners 111 124 disintegration lit 131 signification 11 J08 Durkheim , Ernile I 197
dia lectical dynamics of social Dislocaliom "1 321 trad iti onal 11 306 Duse, Eleanora 11 176
formations 111 388 - 90 dismeT1lbering 111 131 typifications 11 309 Dusrnan , Linda IV 334
dia lectical partner of narcissism 111 99 Disneyland IV :\78 Univers ity of Cambridge 11 303 ·-12 Dutton , Denis IV 334
dialectics 11 17, 19. 264 disorientation IV 298 watching 11 304 Dwork in, Andrea " 58
and drama I 74 disperscd energies of actors I 302 see olso plays Dwyer. Paul " 219
of cu ltural trans mission 11 340-- 1 displacement as energy transfer 11 25 f)m/1w j i-o//{ fhsen lO fJrechl 11 326 Dyer, R. I 144
dialogica l consciousness 111 95 display, performance as I 234 - 6 Drama in a Dramatized Soci ety 11 27U Dylan , Bob 121t)
dialogical conversation 111 97 disposition IJJ 83 f)rama il1 Petjám/(//1ce 11 325 dynamic visual irnage 11 135
dialogical criticism 111 144 lea rned 111 97 drama studios, conceptual crisis in ti 86 Dylla/1/ic Voices IV 78
dialogical performance 111 143--6 disruptive features of pcrforrnance f)ramas, Fields_ (///CI Melaphors 111 119 dynamics of collective Jife 1 20 I
dialogue 11 311 11 232- 3 dramatic art , eonventions of " 271 dyrwmics (lf desire " 57--75
Diamond , E. I 1< 1 - 12. 157, 164; 11 86, dissing, use of term lit 178 dramatic criticism I 76
92: 111 234, 305 dissonance 11 28 ca1cu lu s of 177 Eacl, Ti/1/ (-' / Sl'e You, / Feelll Could Be
Dibbcll , J. 11 346 distanciation " 29 dramatic performance " 88. 96 7 T/¡e Losl Tim(-' I1 40 I
DiCa prio, Leona rdo JI 100 Distributed Interaeti vc Simulatio J1 I 175 as act 01' itcration 11 99 Eaglcton. Tcny " 260, 319 -20; 111 :l07
D ickens, Charles 11 80, 326 7; IV 14 Dixon-GOUschild , Brenda 11 342 Ill iscollcept ion " 93 ~(Jrt h I :l878
Didl:nll , D\!nis I 159; 111 348 Doanc, Mary 1\1111 I 244; IV 262 pcr f~lrHlitl i v it y in 11 93 E,lI th M0lhcr I 2¡;;

.12'
1" ~
 1N Ill l.'\ I N III \

1 ';¡ ~1 ( i\! IIII:III )' 111 ;¡XI ' ;'11 1/111/111/,'1/1 FI/(·/tcll/I('(/I V 22 :-. l~ lhi c~t1lh e(l ll l"; 1 ¡·11t cxpressionislIl , Grolmvski stylc I .~ 1(,
h ISI -hllpc. AntllOllY 11 J I(, elllol iO Il 1 "5 clhico-lIlcl il pi1 ysil';r 1 proi1ihitiolls 11 1." expressiollist film IV .102
1':l'ileJ'l1 t heater 11 29 bllpire o{ Sigl1,1' 111 322 clhnic ;rhsolllllSlll 11 34 1 expressions
I'chllls , Alicc 11 63, 69 empowcrlllcnt, legal gesture 11 138 cthnoccnlricislll 11 383 givclI I 99
h.:J..:hart , Mcistcr III 127 Empsoll , William 11 319, 322, 324 cthnognlphic approachcs in given off I 99
El'O, LJmbcrto I 109. 11 1; 11 222-4: el10rgeia (vividness or shining forth) pcrformance sludics 11 94 expressiveness of an individ ua l I 98
IV 157 1291 ethnographic ficl dwo rk 111 136- 7 ext ras I 31 1, 326
cco-catastrophc 111 293 Endgame 11 275 cth llographic insighls I 223 Eyadema, G enera l Gllassingbc 11 366
cco-feminism 111 295 l'l1ergeia (vigor 01' force) I 291 cthnograph ic models of ritual 11 93
ecological theatre III 293 304 encrgy transfer, displacell1ent as 11 25 ethnograph ic stance in poetry reading fable , origins 11 237
/;'('%gy, MerJ/ling. 11l1d Re!igiol1 111 128 energy(ies) 1 343 face-to-face inte raction I 104
I:á}//omic ({/U! P/¡i!o.\"ophic ¡\!III/Uscripl.l' Aristotlc on I 291 - 2 elhnography I 161 ; 11 g8, 37 1 fa iled pcrformance I 127
III 337 concept I 292 idiography 01' 111 110 failure , possibil ity of I 156
cestasy I 51 discrcte quantities 0 1' I 299 oC performance 111 40. 43 falllily group 111 71
Edelrnan. GemId I 127 experienccd by spectators I 292 ethical dilllcnbions of 111 134 --48 Fal11i!y Portrail.l' IV 403
b.Ie1son, Mary Bcth IV 262 explosion of I 293 performance-sensitive 11 94- 5 Fanon. f'rantz 11 383
Edmonson . M. S. 111 63 in performance 1 294 ethnolllethodological perspcctive fantasy constructi on 11 213 ; IV 292
f;dll1l1l1d Burke Ivfell1oria! Leclllre notion of 1 291 - 2, 294, 300 I V 54 - 65 Faraday, Michael 111 7
111 254 01' spectators I 306- 7 etiolated performance 11 90 Fardon , R. IV 28-9
cducation, women in 1 240- 2 thcatrical I 29 1- 308 etiolations 01' languagc I 155 ; 111 35 Faris, J. 111 62: JV 25, 36, 38
Edwards , Jonathan IV 165 transgressive I 29 1- 308 Elzk orn, K. Peter 11 360. 364 Fascinations, Reactions, Virtual World s
Edwards, P. C. I 243 Engels , Friedrich m 260 - 1, 263 , 337, URAS 1A IV 240 and OtherMattcr l1 81
Edwards, Richard'" 358, 360- 1 .193 uripidcs I 276; 11 99; 111 4 Fassbinder, Werner 111 224 - 5
Edwards, Thomas IV 8, 14 enjoYlllent 01' theatrc 11 233 European oricntation 11 322 Fausl 11 226
Efficient Causes 111 4 en lightenment I 77 European Renaissance 11 27 Fawcett, Farrah IV 314
EfTort!Shape methodologies TI 353 entertainment 11 237- 8; 111 355- 8 Europeras 1& l/IV 354 fear 111 66
ego identity 11 37 as power 111 357- 8 Evans & Suthcrland glider I 177 fe(\st and play I 52
Eü/os 11 61 el1¡//UsiIlS/I'/OS I 293 vans , J. Claude I 356 featurc films I 120
Eightfold Way 111 19 entrepreneurship I 194 vans. Mari IV 86 Felman , Shoshana 11 48; In 324, 334,
Einstein , A. 111 8. 10 environmental theater IV 408 Evans, Walker I V 3 18 339
Eisner, Kurt 111 260 epistemological relativists 111 18 Evans-Pritchard , Sir Edward 111 135 femalc languagc I 342
Elam , Keir 11 38 pstein . Cynthia Fuchs IV 46 event in performance stud ies I 22D- l female nudity I 235; 11 60
e1ectrocncephalogram (E EG) 11 230 cquipmental quaJities I 122 event-character fCllla le role IV 52
e1cctronie arch itecturcs I 180 Equity I 326 of discovery process 111 26 femininity
electronic synthesizers IV 341 Erenberg. L. 11 339 of human Jifc 111 25 intemalizal ionoflV 52
electronic technologies 1 182 Erickson , Jon I 3; 11 175 .',verett, H ugh 111 111 5 masquerade 01' 11 32
Electronic VisuaJization Laboratory [ribon , K. 111 150; IV 269 El'erylhillg 111 11.1' fal/¡ 111 150 felllinislll 11 35, 39, 47
I 170 Eros 11 28 Evreinov, Nikolai I 158 and cinema 11 37
/;"/em elll.l' oI Semio!ogy I 325 E r os (/11(/ Cil'i!izIJliol1 I 178; 111 394 exchange 01' looks between text and and dcconstruction 11 4g
Eliot, T. S. I 195: 11 100.321 - 3 erotic entertainment for women 11 61 audjencel144 and postmodernism IV 25 1- 68
El1is, John I 14 1, 144, 216; 11 293 Esherick , Joscph 111 282- 4 exchange value 111 3n , 381 and psychoanalysis 11 47, 52- 3
Ellis. Trcy IV 76 Essays 011 Per!{¡rmul1ce I V 21D, 2 15 exhibitionism 1 252 and scxuality IV 128
Ellison , Ralph IV 74, 80- 8 Essed, P. IV 53 , 59 exogam)' rule 11 40 avant-garde exploitation of 11 44
clocution essenlialism I 146 expectations. frustration!satisfactio ll of definition 11 4g
Illalpractices 01' I 243 - 4, 254 re-charging IV 143- 57 11 233 potcntia l of 11 34
\\lomen in I 242··· 6 reconsideration 01' IV 111 experience. politics of lll 75 - 107 feminism 's other, dancc studies as
I~ I Tcatro Campcsino 11 371 Esslin, M. 111 307 experiential knowledge 111 132 IV 125- 9
Elwcs. Cathcrinc IV 257 estrangemcnt I 127 experimental evalualion 111 U fCl1\inist aesthetics I 252
cllIharrassmcnt I 105 - 6. 148. 252 , 299; Etehells, Tim rv 225 Expe ri mental Intermedia f'oundation feminist critical writilH! 111 323
IJI 66 7, 88 ethical asscrtions I 346 111 326 feminisl criticisrn 11 57~ 111 305- 19
cllIcrgCl11 culture 111 54 eth ical dimensions of cthnograp hy 01' cxperimcll tal pcrformances 111 13, 17.. 18 fem ini:;t hisll1ri ography I 233
1:lIlcrSil ll IV (, pel-r()rnI;llICl~ 111 134 48 C;\ perillll'lI t:rI prodllcl ions 11115, 17 IClllinist lill gui~ ts 1 342

12·1 11.s
 1'''-1,' I I - ,- ;J , 1-':-;\

I ~· I IIIIII , . I
11 1. ,,11 111 1!1I'lI pill I V 41, 1 111111 1',11 ' H 111 15 111('
r" lII ld,lllo/l .l" 01 Á, //" II'/I'/ fl/l' ,tiril la llall lell kc CllllCC pli llllS nI' slIciallik I I (): I
kllll lll ~ 1 11I.' llol m ,III ~' ¡; ;111 11 51) /'IIUt/ "~II/1\ 1' "" l ' 17M: 111 4 ¡'if//c'li/l//s /11 tI/j' /ll'oi// 111 '\47 ~ o1 l1 l~·~. childrc n\ perrOI'IlI<JIICI.!S (lr 111 tD
h: lIlIl1l SI psyrholana lyt i,' 1h\:l1ry 11 ,1:'\ '//'j'\' 11/ flr, M Íf'/'Iil' 11 1(, ",mI' Sn '/lI's i// l /1101'S /¡ U((' 11 170 G angcs I (,9
klllillisl rctilinkillgs 11 \4 FircsllllIl.!, Shlllamilh IV (1 Fo ul'icr, J . B. 111 2(,,1 G ap-ificalion of gay culture 111 383
kll linisl Ilwa lr\: 11 :lH2 Fil''''f IJflles: Rug.\'. Bl/ffad.\' 111((1 Fllwlcr, Ph ilelllon I 237 Garchik. Lcah 11 378
knlinisl 111I.:ory I 7; 11 14 5,43: Hanno// iurrr Songs 11)71 71 IV 1% Fox , Illlward 11 359 60 Garden of the Gods I 123
111 'IOS 19; IV 97 110. 155,266 first im pressions I 103- 4 Fox, J. 11119 Gardncr, Ava I 329
ami dilfl:I\!I1 cC I V 45 Fil'st Münij'csLO 11 12- 14 Fox, Terry IV 351 Gardner, Ho ward 11 127
h~:yond ;In c.xrrcssivc Illodel 01' gender Firth, R. 111 51 - 2, 62, 11 7 Fraire, Ma nuela IV 257 Ga rfield, John I 311
IV 107 9 Fiseher- Lichte, E. I 9, 158 (JIl , 1(¡3, frame-up 11 32- 56 G arfi nkel, Harold I 195 ; m 52; IV 54 - 5
IISC 01' Icrl11 111 30ó 299- 300: IV 228 fral1ling, kinds of I 121 Garga , Mary 11 272: 111 310
Wcslcrn 11 38294 Fish, S. E. m 3( Frankenthaler, Helcn IV 276- 7 Garis , Ro bert IV 14
f'clllinist Ihought Fisher, Alfen I 347- 8 Fra nk lin , Rev. C. L. IV 76 Garn er, T. I 221
;lI1d llIathcmaticalmetaph o rs IV 45 - 9 f isher, S. I 171 - 2, 18 7 Frazcr, James G. 111 258 Garoian, Cha rles IV 282- 3
whitc rniddle-c!ass bias in IV 44 ..9 Fiske, John 111 196 F rederil:k the G rea t 11 I 16 Garrin, PaullV 396
h:nstcrmaker. S. I 13 ; IV 42- 3,51 - 2, Flacclls, Kimball IV 6 free fall through space 11 210 Gass, William I 190
56 7,66 Flaslulal1ce IV 123 Freedman , Barbara 1 7: 11 32, 285, 290- 1 assner, J. 11 321 - 4, 327
h :r,d , Josette I 5, 159; 11 48 - 9; IV 206, Flcck, John IV 278 freedom , fantasy of 11 207- 15 Gastev, Alexei 111 346
352- 3 Fleishman. Jocl 11 292 Freeman , Elizabcth 111 383 Gates, H enry LOllis Jr. 11 330- 1: 111174
h'rguson, Linda IV 335 - 7 flesh, role oL in performance 11 168--9 FrcidmCln , A. 111 50 Gautam JI 386- 7
h :rgusson. Francis I 195: 11 83,324 - 5, flexible accumulalion 111 386 rench , Jonathan II 200 !"ray community , attiludc toward women
330 Flower-McCanncll, Juliet 11 42 French Revolution 1293; 111 262 111 111 2
h:rlinghetti , Lawrence I 338 FLlJXUS IV 234 Frcud, Sigl1lllnd I 78; 11 12- 13 , 25, gay culture, Gap-if1cation uf 111 383
I'\:rris, Lesley I 234 Fogcrty, EIsie I 243 33 - 4,36, 41, 52, 178 - 9, 244 - 5, gay males , African-Ame rican 111 174 - 6,
f'l.!rtility of crops I 74 folk art I 182 255,262- 3,273,276 7,383,387, 179, 195--6
I'" csta , Angelika 111 326 - 7, 329- 33 folklore 111 33 , 53 - 4 389; 111 258,325 ; IV 93, 383 -- 4 ga y men , white, snapping 111 190
festival of cruelty 11 16, 18 African-American 111 176 Freudianisl1l 111 3 Gay Pride 111 281
festivals I 161 Folklore 4 Capiralism I 82 Fricd, M ichael I 6. 158; 11 254, 397; Gbomba, Lele IV 35
ktishism 11 46: 111 389- 90; IV 261 Fónagy, J. 11134 IV 165 , 192, 2 11 , 316- 18, 323 - 4, Geertz. Cl ifford I 9, 15 , 189, 289;
fictio!l I 142 Ford , Henry III 358, 3(¡O 326- 7 JI 93 - 4; 111 In , 124, 127, 135, 145,
fldelilylinfidelit y 11 19 Ford Motor Com pany IU 346 Friedan , Betty IV 67 280; IV 130
¡¡dd study, unit 01' I 58 - 60 Fordism 111 358 friendship 111 65, 67, 70- 1 gender II 36
figure, use 01' term I 143 Foreman. Richard I 163, 263; 11 111 , rrivolity I 51 analysis 01' IV 1I1
Figllring Lacall 111 325 115 , 117, 157, 161 , 178,266; Froben ius, Leo I 47- 8, 51,54 and sexuality 11 6\, 72- 3
film I 324 - 37; 1146 - 7, 51 , 88 , 101 ,346, 1114 - 7, 298; IV 306, 318, 320, f"o/11 Memol'y IV 222 categorization on basis of IV 54 - 7
369 328 - 30 Fl'om Ritual fo Theall'e 11 279 choreographies 01' IV 111 - 40
and thea tre JV 291- 305 Foremanesque solipsism 111 9 Frost, Robert I 14: IV 3- 9, 11 - 12, 14 conceptualiza lions of IV 65
overview of looking structures FOl'esls: The Sluuloll' oj' (.'iI'i!i:afio ll frustrationlsa tisfaction of ex pectations eonstitution , and performative aets
11 284 - 5 111 299 11 233 IV 97- 110
perform a nce r 145, 328 Forkbeard Fantasy IV 220 Frye, M,lri lyn IV 54 contcmporary constructiolls I 247
spectator's gaze 11 287 FOI'/11S or Tlllk I 140- 1 Frye, No rthrop I ,197; 11 320 critical genealogy of IV 108
tcchnology I 184 Fornes, Maria Irene 111 298 Fuchs, Elinor I 7; 11 109; IV 308 economy 111 325
visual operation and fascination 01' Forrester. Alice 11 67 fun 01" playing I 37 fa nta sies of Ji beration 11 63
11 287 Forte, Jeanie IV 251 FUlllly{¡ouse oj' a Negro 111 31 1 identity IV 98
Film IV 388 -9 orte, Simone IV 326 FlISS , Di a na IV 145 in disabled body JI 197
Fillll ({/1(1 T/¡eafre IV 296 Foster, SlIsan I 14; I V 111 in pornography and performance
nlm ('u/fur/' 11 114 FOllcalllt, Michel I 149- 50 , 179 , 190, Gadamer, H-G. I 129 ; 11 259. 262 -3 11 57 75
Film ls Hl'if. Radio is Good IV 320 197, 201,250; 1161 , 179, 210, G aines, J. 111 4(J7- 8, 411 projecl of conceptllalizing IV II 1
Final Causes 111 4 250, 315: llJ 79, 87, 92- 3, 99, G alla ghcr, Cathl.!rine 11 330 ·1 si lidies I 108
Finl.!, E. C. I 220 1 219 , 288 , 332 , 354 5. 358- 9.365. Gallo p, Jane IJ 34 5, 38 - 9 lraditio nal conceptualizations 01'
H nlcy, K. 11 61 1 97; IV 274, 278 397: IV 100, 102 3, 108, 15.5 - 6. game analt)gy I 193 -4 IV 49 54
Fi//f¡,y 1'. N EA IV 2]') 2 6~ ganle 01' lile I 85 use 01' lerm 111 ~07 8

11II
1:.!'/
 IN 1" \ I N I)I ~ S

1,,'IIIIt>lll!.ulI l tod dill ~' I 't1 II\:, 111 \2.5 (;I~' lldll llllll l!" 1111):: " IV 2:5 tralll , ( :c llc l;iI 1 ~t) IV 225
Iffl<'III'11
~C l\lk r IIcu lr:1I h()d y la lk 1 247 (¡lel lll Evc lyn Nakanu IV 47. 62­ (Jr:llI villc-l1a rke l , I l;¡ rk:y 11 ~2 Il ale, Do ro!hy 11 .no
f ,/'I It/t'I', Sl'\lIo/III', !lile! '/}¡('(//rico!ill' ill jk: llllÍe , hdyn I 359 G ra ve!'. Da vid 1 3: 11 157 Hall , Stuar! 11 31 S: III 92, 97, 287:
/. 01111 i //l/t'/'im I 1ü2 G klbc T hcatr~ JI 306 G r~ y , Pu ul l 2ll , 2.16 IV 1SS
(;"lItlN rl'OIlh!c IV 114 glossopocia 11 11 Gray, P. 11. I 242 I-Iall , Vicki IV 254
(,/ '/u/{'I' t i¡/c IV 107 Gluckman, M. 111 62- 3, 112 Gray, Spalding 11 97. 159- (¡O, 163,376 Halley, Peter IV 318
(jc llcr:1I Motors (GM ) 111 387 Gocldess of Oemocracy and r reed o rn G rcat M ystcrics 11 20 Ha lprin, Anlla I 283
~c n nali ",ed dissemiot ization JI 28 III 284- 5 Grcat Tradition 1 68, 70 Ham/el I 72 , 124, 128 , 197; JI 30, 81, 97,
(i clld .I e'ln JI 237, 274: 111 202, 224-5; Godloviteh, S. 1371 ; IV 332-3,335 , broad hypotheses [ 57- 8 99, 116, 274
IV 142, 383 337,339- 41 cul,t ural perforrnances I 57-71 HAMLETMACHIN E II 399
gél10cilk JlI 234 Goelhe 11 79 Greeee 1 28-9, 276 --7 Ha udel, G. F. I 375
gé llo-song I 143 Goffrnan. E. I 13, 110- 14, 118 - 20, G rcck drama 1 86, 282 Hand kc, Peter I 321 - 3: 1I 249, 274;
ticnlik,.I. 1 236-7,244 123- 7, 131, 140, 145 8, 193 - 6: G reen, N. 1252 III 224 - 5: IV 312, 3 14
.~e()lnctrie mctaphors IV 43 111 35-6, 39, 156, 257; IV 54, 67, Green, Vanalync IV 257 HANDSIGH T I 181 - 2, 187
gC()lllct ry JlI 6 106 G rcen bcrg. Clemen t IV 168- 9, 172, 177, Hanna, J udith Lynne III 127
(i t:orges, R. III 48, SO COill[.;, Coing, Gone LJ 100 317 -1 8 Hanllerz, U. III 62
( :cras, N. 111 338 Goldberg, Rose-Lee IV 207, 362 Green blatt, Stephen 1 295 - 6 I-Iantis, D. M. I 233
Unshwin, Georgc I 373 Go!dherg Varia/ion,l' IV 337 Greenham C o mmon Peace Camp Happenings I 321
( ~ersoll, JlIdith IV 52, 67 Go!din V Clarioll P/¡o/(}p!ay.l' rn 409, 111 281 influence I 319
(;es!I/11/kU/1.I·llVerk JI 278 411 Greenwald, Ted I 353 non-matrixed performing ofl 32 ¡
gl'stalt proeess 1 144 Goldrnan, Ernmél IV 127, 135 Grcgory, O. III 52-3 use of term I 318 - 19
gestie feminist eritieism IH 315 - 17 Goldrnan . M. I 297-8: 11 87 , 110-· 11 Grcimas, Algirdas J. 11 221 H arawa y, O onna I 233, 239, 241; III 380
gesture and spceeh JI 11 Go!dsleill 1'. Ca!ijómia 111 406 Grigely , ./. 11 97-9 Ha rdi ng, F rances I 8; IV 22
(;es/us III 314-17 Górnez-Peña, Guillermo IV 382 G rime, Ronald 111 124 Hardy, Thomas II 115,326
gt:1ting off on the right foot I 104 Goodall, Ja ne III 356 Grirnke, Sarah 1238 Harper, G. IV 274
(ihanaian Coneert Party 11 375 Goode, E. IV 271 Grossberg, La wrence JI 315, 330- 1 Ha rper, Michael IV 80
Ghandi, Mahatma III 271 - 2 Goodrnan, Todd JI 192-3 Grotowski, J. I 154,220,283, 320- l; Harrís , R oy I 362- 3
Ghéon, Henri JI 82 Goodrich, P. 111415-16,419 Il 176-9, 181, 225 - 8; IV 92, 153 , Irarrison, Georgc 111 413, 421
Ghosh, M. JI 224 Gordon, M. 111 345 213 , 309 Harrison, hne I 195: IV 320
G!toSl SOlla/(¡ n 275 Gorky III 262 Grotowski, M. 11 110 Harrison , Robert Pogue III 299 300
Gibson, W. I 174 - 5 Goss, JlIdy Baker I 242 Groulldho[.; Day JI 283 - 4 Harrop, John IV 33, 35
GiJal. P. JI 44-6 Gossen, G. III 39,4 1 grQUp dance I 74 Hart, Lynda rv 150-1, 153
Giddens, A. III 76 Gossen, G. H. 111 63 b'TO UP responsibility I 83 Ilart, M. III 356-7, 365, 367
Giesckam, Greg IV 221 Gossett, Thomas IV 52. 57, 62 groups I 82 Harvcy, David III 380, 386
Gilgamesh III 299 gossip IU 61-74, 115 Grubers, Ruth Ellen III 220 Ilashoah, Beit III 241, 243
(¡illigan, C. I 246, 252 arnbivalent attitude towards 111 68 Grundisse 111 381 Hassan, Ihab 111 131
Gilroy, Palll JI 315, 341 analysis of 111 62 Grupo Corpo 11 351 Haveloek, Eric I 350
G insberg, A. I 338 - 9, 34 L 361; as nonsensc 11 I 65 GL/arded Condilfoll.l' JlJ 328 Havránek, B. 111 34
IV 195-8 eornmentators on JlI 63 GlIardini, R omano I SO I-Iawcs, Lconard III 75, 365
(;intis, Herbert III 392 denigrated III 65 Guatarri. F. 11 114 lIawking, Stephen II lOO
(¡¡ rard, R ené III 279 features of 111 62 Guattari, P. I 184 I-Iaydn, J. IV 341
tti rli'riend culture 111 184-6 funetion of, in spceille groups 111 73 Guillory, John 11 317,320 Haywanl, Philip IV 351
gllls lines 01' argument JlI 72 Gulliver, PhillipJil 117 Ileaffey Centre 11 197, 199
pube rty ehants [11 46 Goul'd, Glenn IV 337 , 341, 346 Gurney, Edmund IV 336 hearing, pleasure of II 239-40
puberty ri tes III 47 Gourcvitch, Philip IU 238,243 Guruji 11 388 - 90 Hear/ of/he Scorpioll 11 67
G laser, B. IV 317 Gracyk, Theodore I 4: IV 332 Guthmann, Edward 11 369 Ileath, Stephenl 139, 141-3; II 44 ,
(,'/a.lgol\' A// Li/ Vp! III 268 Graff, Gerald 11 320 Guthrie. T yrone n 84 46-7: III 312
(ilash üw Wc inbcrg Salem clcetroweak Graharn , M. H. 111 416- 18 Gutkind, Erie 11 110 heathcnislll III 137
1hcory 111 14-· 1S G rarn , e i, A nt o n iQ 111 260 H cbrcw Biblc I 296
IlI ss , Ph il ip 111 C) Gnmd lI nili¡;d Ihcorv 111 15 11 a bcrnlCl s, J. I 201, 361: 11 175 Il ebrcw thcat re I 297
las ~k 1I 111 53, L\4, 144 S g rallll r: II \; III .. 1 lile 11 1 70 /whi/II.I 111 Sl I kgcdü s, A gncs 1 181
I: w.: r, N\llla IV 50 G l'iIlIl .( ¡II\, 1 I,n IIUl!kc r, Ilc lk' n M: lyc r IV 50 1 h.:~~ I . G. W . r . 11 18: III 337; IV 199

"':?~
. 1.1 t)
 I N 111 , , I~ J I J ! ~'\

Ik illllilll 1(" bl'l l 11 n -1.' 11 Il,, 'p, ,1 ,, ',1 111 1 '1. 214 ·52 Il lI ys.~l·lI . 1\11.11 1'" '' 11 \1) " IlId ll l lll~ ivi/ Ili1l i'ln
1 1c 1l1l ~ . Ii:~w 11 I7X; IV 77-' , .tl') .\1'1' t1lw 1/lIi' ed Sl¡¡ les Il llloc<l USI !ay '\( ¡di¡ a lloll , d H II ~c 11 \4') 50 cultural ¡lal lerll (JI' I (¡X ')
IICI IIIII)'.w:ly. l': IV 11 1(¡ MI:III'" i;tI MUSCUIll, Washillgtoll Il ylll c .~ ,
1)1:11 111 ~ 1 , :; h istory 01' I 59
Il clIlIlIgway. Ma rga ux I :n 1 .1 D.C. hypl!rml.!diu IV 400 1 Indian elassical dancc 11 390
Il clldcl's" Il . Stephc lI IV S7 9 Holzer, Jenny IV 318 hYPl! r-pUl'llL" ry IV 3(,8 Indian culture I 59 60 , 267
IlulIll\:ss!')y, Rosclllary IV 156 HO !11age lo Ne w York IV 1tl9 hype rtext IV 400 Indian patriarchy 11 384
Il cll l'y. MichcllU 337- tl Homburg, Ro ben In 408 hysterics. performcrs as I 252- 3 Indian theatre I 280, 282
1/,'/1/'1' VI 110 11 homo ¡oquax 1 75 Indiana , Gary 11 165
1kril ll¡!C, .Iollll IV 55 6, 5¡'; homosexual ity 111 393- 4 I Chillg I 3 I 1 indifference 11 29- 30
hnlllcllcu I ies 111 11, lóO Hong Kong Fu films 11 369 IB M I 187 individualísm 11 35, 385; 111 390; IV 264
I lc rn ad i, Paul 11 259 I1 oover, M. 1. 10 348 Ibsen. H. 11 100.279, 305, 329; 111 202 , ,i ndustrial architectures .1 180
1krrlllanl1 , Ma x I 158 I-Iopi Snake Dance m 139 297, 300, 302 ¡nd ustrialization 111 130
hL'lnOSexu¡dity 11 60. 63. 91: IV 102 7 Hopkins, F. M. 11 96 identification I 143 , 145, 147 informalion networks I 180
lIihbitts. B. J. 114; 11 124; 111418 Horgan 11. M ae l'vl illat!. Inl'. 111 414 - 15 identi, y I 148 information sourecs I 97
hi\! rllglyphics 11 12, 28 horizons, internal o r ex.terna l 111 12 identity politics 11 341 infonnation teehn ology I 164
Iligg.lnbotham , Elizabeth IV 44 Horkheilller, Max m 393 idcological theatre 11 16 informational presentation I 312
11 i ~gins , D. I 219 Horowitz IV 342- 3 ideology 111 94, 338 infratheatricality IV 214 - 15
11 iggills, Kathleen rvl. IV 332 Horton , R. UI 127; IV 26 a nd con versa tion 111 96 ingenuity in scíentifle activity 111 17
lI ig h-energy physics 111 17, 24 hospitalizal ion , test situations I 206 and language II I 96 Inglis , fred 11 326, 328 - 9
hi)'.lIer education for ",omen 1241 HOLl Hsiao-H sien 11 403 CQnception of 111 96 initiatory/transformative proccss I 288
Ililberl , Richard A.113; 111169 lIou.I'es 01' Glass '111 301 formulation 01' 111 98 Innes, G. 11139
Ililgard , A. J. 111 415 Houston , Bever le 11 293 1¡¡({dIl133 insider-theory I 114 15
Ilill, Anita IV 68 Ho\l' lo Do Things Wilh Words I 155; IIlich , Ivan 11 367 insiders I 110
Ilinduism I 58 111 323. 339 illusion IV 4, 35 insinuatioll 111 35
hip hop style 11 343 Hmv lo S //Op: Tlle Leclure IV 222 creation 01' IV 292 integrity conditions I 371
11 ippolytus I 95 H owe, Susa n I 363 imagery I 77 integrity factors 1 ~71
lIirsch , P. IV 271 Ho w/l :138 - 41 images of woman JI 47 integrit y of agcncy I 371
historie q uestion 11 5 Hrdlickovú, V. 111 38,45 irnagination I 145 interactio n , 122--]
historical events 111 213 ·-33 H ubble spaee 'telcscope 111 23 Imaginalio/l (//1(1 Power IV 8 <Ir! onv 395 - 410
eOlllmemoration 01' 111 213 HudJin , Rcginald IV 76 Imagil1ed (.'ommunilies 111 380 principIe of I 11 X
historieal materialism I 305 H ughes, David IV 355 imitation 111 36 ritual 01' I 146; IV 401
historieization 111 310 - 14 Hughes. Everett C. IV 52 destruction of 11 5 interactional modus ..il/elldi I 103
historiography oftourism 111 213 - 33 Hughes, H. 11 66, 157, 162 3; 111 308; pleasure of 11 239 intcraclive computer <Ir! IV 395 410
history of theatre 11 5 IV 273 , 278 ,imitative concept 01' an 11 5 interactive computa musie IV :195 (¡
lIislFiorr¡aslrix Ihe Player 's Scourge. Hugo, Victor l 159 immodality interactive systems IV 399
111', A('/ors Tmgedie I 235 Huizinga , 10han I 36; 111 264 alld profundity I 95 interactive technology IV 395
hislriol1ic sensibility 11 83 Hull , Gloria T. IV 45,50 and solernnit y I 95 fetishization IV 397
IlilL:heoek , A. I 327; 11 51 ; IV 304 human ageney I 144 impersonation I 124 interactivity IV 395- 410
IIl1lol1g 1ft 136--7, 139 human race 11 1¡';O impossible, pleasurc of 11 245- 6 current faseination with IV 405 - 6
Ilohbes, Thomas 111 255- 6 human Jire, event-character 01' U1 2.5 impressions dellnition of IV 399
Ilobbs. Christophcr I 373 humanisni I 193; 11 35 ercating I 210 interculturalism 11 395- 404
Ilobcrman. 1. 11 403 H umphery. Doris I 120 m<lnagement I 211 interdi sciplinarity I 108
Iloehschild . Arlie Russell IV 49 50 H unclzhack o/Notre D(//'I1e I 2RCl In Livil1g Color UI 187, 191 interfamiJial marriage 11 40
Iwcketing, practice of I 374 H ungary I 182 Ill l'vJy Falher's H{Ji/se: AJi'h'a i/1 Ihe interloeking categories IV 43
Ilodgson. C heryllll 407 8 Hu nter, lan I 148 - 9 Phi/o.l'uphy o/Tullure 11 365 interlocutors 111 92
11o ffllla n. Abbie 111 273. 278 - 9 Hurtado. Aida IV 44,67 In Ihe Jungle (~r Cilies 11 272; 111 310 International School 01' Theatre
IlolTlIlan, Dustin 111 332 Husserl, Edmund 1361 ; 11257; IU 5: 1/7 Ihe Slllu}ol!' o/Ihe Silenl Maiorities i\nthropology (ISTA) I 288; 11 no,
holislIl 01' narrative 111 27 IV 97 11 275 382- 4, 388
hollo", ness 01' ordinary language n usl/e I 333 incanlatory molles I 81 Intcrn ational Symposi urn on Elcetronic
pcrfonnati ves 11 90- 1 H utehins , Jea nnie 11 167 iru:est 11 40 Arts (lSEA ) IV 395
1I(1ll wil z, .l . C. I 244 H uxley, Al d o u ~ IJI 347 India 1 57 inlerprcti ve consistency in musical
11"lllIes , Oli vl.::r Wendd l IV 11() H uygens, Christian 111 35() India S'o/lg I1 51 pcrforma nce I 376- 7

~\O 1' \ 1
 I r'f fll~ ~

IIII, '"II/'"O//.I IV I'IH 1) , Ih.' 111M t 1 1I \l1 \~ ~ 11 .' 11, J..iIl C~llIc~l )' JI~yl· I Hflllril·; ¡J
app ro;) chcs 1" I ah,'wit /. 1 cs lic It 51l, lIt) ; IV 2~H
Hll el ~ lIhl l:¡; I I VII y 1 J SJ
Jp:,,'p" ( jlcllla IV 44 1 250 I ahric. Pcl\:1' IV 75
111 pll,~ 1 ry n;n dirtgs 1 16 1 :'i
J(lSl:p lt , Mlr.tnda I 11 ; 111 372 J.. im:slhclic sCllli"tics 11 134 l.acan. J, lI :n 4, 37 S.40 2, 4:' ,
illlnl CX lual ¡¡lIaly~is I 341
juuissHllce I 143 K lIIg I ,('tlr 1 :N6 51 - J, 176, 250, 25J, 27(" 279- S0,
illlraf'a rniliallll:.lrriage 11 40
JOU/'I1l1/ (!/ Pelj'orl17(/!l('(' SItIe/h'.\' 1 17f1 King, Martin Luthcr.lr. 111 241 285 8, 291. 294. 389, 392: 111 203 ,
illvcnlion, plcasure of 11 241 2
Joycc, James 11 224; 111 4: IV 1) King, Mervyn 11 20S 207 , 209, 325. 329. 333 4, 377:
IlIl'isiN" Mall IV SO
.Iudd , Donald IV 166, 180 King, Ynestra 11 195 , 6 IV 150- L 254- 5, 361. 381, 383,
1011 1 233, 292
Judson Church D ance T hcater JI 201 Kingston , Maxinc Hong 11 189 385- 8,391 2
IOll Thealn: IV 220
Judson Dance T hcatre 1 320 K irby , E. T. 11176 Lacanian formula 11 259
Irigaray, Luce 11 43, 392: 111 311:
Juliu.\' Ca('sar iI 277; ILI 19 Kirby, Michacl 18, 13,309; IV 22-- 6, Lacanian psychoanalysis 1 141 ; 1148
IV 159,259
J upiter Capitoline 1 30 30- 1, 36, 38 --9 Lacanian Real and Symbolic 111 207- 8
Irony 11 395
Ki rk wood, W, G, 1 221 Laclau. Ernesto 111 373, 392, 397;
Isil/yago IV 27
kahary 111 37. 50 - 1 Ki rshenblatt-Gimblett 11144 IV 156
Israel I 21)7
Kachin 111 62 Klaver, Elizabeth 11 282 Lacy, Suzanne IV 253
/wheka IJI 1 13 Klee, Paull 305- 6 Lady Diek HI 308
Jackson. Blyden IV 789, 87 Kah n, Jean 111 216 Klossowski. Pierre 1 293 La Fura Deis Baus IV 355
J¡¡ckSOIl, Jessc 11 272 Kakar. Sudhir 11 385 Kluckholm , Clydc I 190 Lahr, Joh n 111 268
Jacksoll, Shannon I 16; 11 313 Kamuf, Peggy lJ 50 Knap, Anne 11 25 La/u v, Ade/! ChelJlica/ 111 410
.Iacobson. Lynn 111294- 5 Ka nt , r. I 92 , 346; 11 32; 111 337 knowledge Laing, R, D. 11 177
.1;1 !\obson, J, 111 :W, 380 Kantian philosophy I 343 body 01' 11 184 Lama nti a. Philip 1 338
Jakobson, R, I 355,357; 111 32, 34 Kantor, T. J 2645 ; 111 214,224 - 7,229 revelalion of 11 184 Lam b, Charles n 80, 82
Jakubs , Deborah 11 338 K(/pÍla/ J I1 29 Knowles, Christopher 111 1() Landau , Tina 11 lOO
Ji/1111'S alld Ihe Gialll Pea eh IV 376 Kaplan , Ann IV 262 Kobialk a, Michal 111 213 Landauer. Gusla v 111 260
James. Henry I 14; IV 3- 4, 8, 13- 14, Kaplin , S, IV 368- 9, 373 - 5, 378 Kohlmaier, Gcorg 111 301 Landow, Georgc p, IV 159
148 Kaprow, A, 1 263; IV 130 Komarovsky, Mirra IV 52 Lane, A, 11 102
James , William 111 264 Kapsalis.T. 11 88 Kordian 11 226 Lang, K, D. IV 141
Jal11eson , F. 11 250. 283; 111 140- 2,380; Kal/wka/i 11 388 Kracauer, S. 111 356; IV 293 , 302 Langellicr, K. M, , 233
IV 201 Kawabata , Yasunari 11 115 Kreckler, D, IV 357- 8,362 Langenbach , Ruy IV 272, 279 RO
Japan 111 38, 349; IV 356 KClye, Nick 1 5; IV 218 Kreigcr, Murray IV 188 u1ngcr. SlIsannc I 197,2 16.3(,(
Japanese Butoh 11 350 K/co ko(u)vito concert party 11 371 - 8 Krishna I 267 ; 11 390 Langston , Donna IV (¡ 2 )
Japanese culture 11 28 , 398 Keaton, Diane I 330 Kristeva , J. I 299, 354; 11 39, 43 , ~8 , lan guage I 142; 111 94 6
Japanese Noh I 283 Keaveney, M, I 219 J91; 11176,80, 90; IV lOO, 107, and behaviour 111 97
Jardine, Aliee 11 392 Kecnan , E, 111 37, 3':1, 50 - 1 201,255 and ideology 111 96
jan and rock 111 361 Kelly, D. H, IV 271 Kristcvan paradox 11 52 and play 1 39
kl'fers. Robinson 111 302 Kelly, Grace 1 329 Kubiak , Anlhony 111 201 and sexual ditTercnce 11 33
knkins. Len 11 113 Kelly, 1011n "401 K ugler, Paul I 355 articulCltions 01' 11 11
Jellsen , Ad, E, 1 52- 4 Kemble. F, A, I 236- 7, 239 Kuhn, Thomas 1190; IV 318 as culturalmedium 1 67
kyil'o. Bi od ull 11 375 - 6 Kennedy, Adrienn e " 114: 111 310- 11 ; KU/'OII/ho 1 309 as system of pure values 1 J62
Jo/l 's SO/'/'OII'.I' 1 297 IV 91 Kurosawa IV 295 basic referential uses 111 35
.Iohnsoll, Barbara 11 330-1 ; 111 309 Kennedy, Robert IV 16 Kushllcr, Tony 111 295 complcxities 01' I 353
.Iohnson, E, Patrick 111 173 Kent , j , IV 271 kwag/¡-hir IV 31 eliolations of 1 155; 111 35
Johnson , Lyndon 111 256- 7 Kerényi, Karl I 52 gallles 1 179, 193; '"givenness" 11 184
.Iohllson, Salllucl 11 80, 185 Kcrmode, Frank IIJ 115 Laba n, Rudolph von 11 353 inverse relationship to presence 11 183
joking 111 35 Kern , Thomas 1" 217 La Ba rbara . loan IV 326 male I 342
joking rclationships 111 61 Kerouac, lack 1 338 La Borharie IV 200 of speech 11 7, 10- 11
.I U IICS. Ann Rosalilld 11 43; IV 251) 60 Kerr, W. A, 111 356 labelling 01' social drama IV 278 performance as mode 01' 111 36
Jellles, Bill T. 11 157, 168, 196,352 Kershaw , Baz I !O; 111 266 laboratory studics 111 20 performalivity of IV 113
.Iulles, L. 111 361 Kesslcr, SlIzanne.l. IV 55 labour phonetic struclUre 1 352
.IoIlCS, S, e 111 356 keying, performance 111 40 - 1 consllmplivc 111 382 text-ccnlercd study 01' 1 199
.Iolles, SinlOlI IV 223 keywonls I 108- ' distinctio l1 s between mental and usagc 111 66
,h 'rdan , JlIl1l: IV 47 Kiefer, Anselm 111224 5 manual 111 344 IIl1m:d 11 183 4
.I lm,lall , M ichacl IV 74 5 kincmalics IV :no pl'Odllcliw 111 :182 l ,alllll' Y Richard 1 27 11- 9

·11:'
LtI
 1 I"i T 'T'..
F ......~~- TII"H

I 110 111 1 lb I I ' .11 11,.1/1 1111u: 1 iOIl 11 133 I ~w i !>. J ill lV 1I I.ivy 11 I j I
I il pl;lIU: 1I 1: .I ~HII 11 2'i l Ildll·,III V\.: IlI m.:l iollS 11 121) :W Ll'wis, O S~';¡I 1 111, Loango 1 2 ~ , 5.\
I ap,, "l e, I{ O/;:IJI' 11 1\4 Iltc nlll 131 l.(·ydc lt, '"hit 01' 111 2(,1) Lockc , Johl1 1 l(n
1./1 !}/'()(' /lIIill(,/in".\' jI' I'O/l.\' !I' I'I/l/I/falli nlllcmonic l'undiol1 s 11 134 Ó liheral culturc 11 J Il) logocentrism 1 34<)- 52
11 ."10 ordinative runctions 11 130 I libcralion , gCl1lkr fantasics o f 11 63 Loman , Wi lly IV 232
lasns 111 24 physical eontact 11 135 libcralivc fantasics 11 64 - 9 London Conlcmporary Dance Thcatrc
Llssil~r, John IV ~65 psychological fUllcl ions n 1~7- 1\ Libeskilld. Daniel 111 224 5 11 197
L:llin Álllcrica 1 1()2- 3; 11342, 347, 350 public n 136 libidinal eeonomy 11 30 Long, Beverly Whitaker I 215
Latin dances 11 344 - 7 regulatory fundiol1s U 136- 7 lieentious play beha viour 111 66 Long, B. L 1196
1 atom. Bruno 111 164 re-membering law 11 139- 41 Lichtcnbergcr 11 4 Lookil/glol' M I'. Goodbar 1329- 30
Lu ullhlin. C. D. 111 365 sanction sLlpporting a legal life as theatre 1 203 - 14 Lopata , Helena Z. IV 52
lallghter and play 1 40 transadion or re1ation 11 133 Lije Hisfory (/l/lOng fhe Elderly: Lopez, Hercilia 11 351
Lau rel, B. 1172, 181 , 187 shaping 01' rcaction 01' witncsses Per!ormwu:e, Visihilify. (//1(} Lord , A. B. 111 39, 49 50
L¡lvcry, Bryony 111 297- 8 11 1~8
RememIJering I1I 121 Lord , A lbert III 48
I,aw. A. 111 345 Ilegal instrumentality 11 139. 141
Lite ojDram(/ 11 315 Lorde, Audre IV 44
law 01' place ami fram e IJ 34 legal literaturc 11 125
Lije Sholl' 111 268 Los A l/geles 2000 I 168. 177
law-enforcement officcrs 11 125 legal meaning, locus ofU 125
LiteFormsl 185 Lowdon, Richard IV 225
J ,tIII 'II1110Wer Man 1 186 legé:ll performance JI 130
Lifschi tz, E. IV 3D LSnllJ16
Lawrence. D. J L 11 326 ; JlI 110; IV 13 legal transé:lction 11 129--31
Lighf Toudl I 122 Lubitsch , Ernst 11 114
Im.... ·s crisis of texl 11 126 and legé:ll gesturc 11 140 liminal cvents 11 131 ludic creativity II 242
iaw's depcndcncc ol' gesture 11 126 sales resistanec lO 11 137- 8
liminal process 111 128 ludic pleas ure 11 242
law's text legitimation I 346
liminal rites 1 29 I,ugosi, Beta I 270
body in 11 125- 7
Le hrer, Tom 111 162
liminoid space 111 100 Luhrmann. Baz 11 88. lOO 3
conception ol' 11 126
Leibowitz, Amy 111 217
Limón . J. 11 87 l.ukács, G eo rg 111 260, 373
writing in 11 125
Leigh, Vivien 1 325
Linden , Robin Ruth 11 72 lukollu 111 114
Lcach, Edmund 111 124 Leipúger Volkszeiful1g 111 215
Lindsay, Arto 11 346 LlI~k in, J. IV %7
Lcach, E. R. 11162 Lelaml Richard 111 328
linguisties 1 362; IJII 323 Luthcr. r...lartil1 11 l3 ~
lead performer IV 32 - 6 Le LiI'ing 1 319
Linton. Ralph IV 52 Lynch. Da vid IV _, 8 ~ 4
Lcar, Nonnan 11 272 Lenin , V. 1. 111 261 - 2
Lipman, S. IV 278 Lyotard , Jcan-F ran¡'lOis I 7, 1711, 171\ ()
I.cbel, Jean-Jaqucs 111 274 Lepschy, Giulio I 325
Lippard , Lucy 11 59--60; IV 194 183; 11 25. 4S , 250 ', ~ fJO, 2 (, ~ 4,
I.cClerc, Annie IV 263 Lerner. G. 1236.241
Liszt, Franz 1 130 284, 295, 395 ; 111 219, 224. 2() ~(
I.e Corbusier 11 396 lesbié:ll theory IV 155
literalmeaning 1 352 IV 223, 225. ~59
Icdures. serialization 1 379 lesbian. use of term IV 141. 150
literalist art IV 172, 175
kCluring 1 140 lesbian performance IV 141 - 61
literary gift vs. é:llcoholism 1 79 80 M(/('het/¡ 1 197
I .cc. C. 1 248 , 250 and se'X ué:llity 11 64 ·-9 literary stud ies 11 35, 89, 93, 319, 332 McCaffery, Steve 1 358 - 9
I.ce. Emma 11 208 lesbié:ln pornography 11 69-71 literary theory 1341 , 343, 354, 356 McCal!. M. M. 1 13; 111 149 72
I.ccch, G. 111 34 lesbia n sadomasochistic rituals 11 57 literat ure MacCannell. J. 111 325
lellal agreement or relation 11 132 lesbia n theory IV 146 concept 01' 11 316, 318 McCarthy, Joseph 11 165
leila 1doculllents 11 125 lesbianism IV 263 in pe rformance 1 215 McCauley, Robbie 11 157, 167
legal geslure 11 124-53 Les COl/sins 1 329 Li!tle Tradition 1 (,8 McClure, Michaell 338
alllllcgal transactions 11 140 Leller LO ¡'vi . d'Alemhl'rI 11 1(¡ broad hypothcses 1 57-8 McDonald , Christie IV 127
as moda lit y 11 127 Levenson , M . IV 367- 8, 373- 4 , 378 Lillle Trips 1 317 McDonald , ~/L 11 87
cOlllmunal functions 11 133- 4 Levcrtov. Denise 1 347- 9 , 358 , 361. Live Art IV 219 , 221-4, 226 McDowcll , J. 111 39
dcfinition 11 126 364 - 5; IV 195 and Performance Art IV 219 McGann , J. J. 11 97
dcmonstrativc functions 11 132·-3 Lévi-Strauss, e 1 2()6; 11 40; rv 103, 151 Lil'e Are Ess(/ys (/nd DOCl/melltafions Machiavel1i 111 257
clIlpowermenl 11 138 Lel'iafhal1 ni 256 IV 218 Machinc Culture 1 181
evidcntary funclions 11 131 - 2 Lcvin , David Michaell ~60 live performance IV 149 Machine Culture (exhibition) 1171
reding 11 131 Lcvin , I lanoch 1 297 living presence IV 31 () machinic phylulll I 184
fUllctions 01' 11 128 38 Lcvinas, E . 11 255 - 6, 260, 266 li ving ritual 111 126 M adnlyre. Alasdair 1 346: 111 114
highlillhting runction n 130 Levinso n, .Ierrold 111 88; rv 335 . 343 Living Thea t re I 154, 319; 11 22(, , 377; M cKenn a , Wend y IV 55
histnry 0 1' 11 126 Lévy. Bc rn md -I k nri I V 200 JII 277; IV 212. ~06, 311\
M cKenzie, .I o n I 2. 168 ; m 349 50
ill lIIedieval Gc rrnan la w 11 134 I~w i s , Genr).!\! IV .lm, 406 1 ivil1gstol1c, JC l1nie 11 lOO
M <I \:K innl,l[l. Ca lherine 1I 58

4 ',1 r~
M l: I II I ~ II . t I, I } I 1. 1\ 111 11<7
1\·1111 11 11 , Iklll M' IVkd 111 i, ¡\ Vi lllllll I Ii 11 .IX" 1I1l!'1 1'1'I,l l' II" "" <\ , w k~' li,," :llId
Md 1111 :111" I;II"sh;dll IH7; 111 2n : t 'm-ci l ll , \8~ . 3!:\4, .\XX
I'\b l l lll Méli0s. ( ;I!I1' ¡;l:~ 1\1 21)2 I ~·" II/;¡Ii,," 111 Xl
IV .12(1 M;II vcl l. i\lIdl'cW IV 3. S 9. 11 . 14 Ml:hosc . SlIsall lV 22.1 MIl.:I'l IS( \ f'l1 I X7
M~N ;!l lI iI ni , Bruoks I 215 Marvin X IV 75 - 6 Mdvillc, 11. IV H2 3. 8\ 2% Micld le ¡\ IIlcriGlI1 IlId i i! "~ 111 fi:\
lIIa cru-l11aero systclll building 1 1<) 1 Marx. Karl I 75 , 84; 11 26. 175.277, Illcl1lory 111 X9 91 M illdle I:.a~t 111 1~ 1
M d~o bbic. Angcla 11 315 364; 1/1 206. 260, 263 4, 3~7 8. <lmJ mcaning 111 12 1- 2 Midd lelon, Peter I :nS
MaUhub uti , I lak i IV 75, 78- 9, 87 340- 1. 372- 8, 38 1- 2, ~X4 - S, cm bodirncnt of 111 ~S 91 ¡Hidfer \" Ford Molor ('ompan)' 11 1 410
Madison , D. S. 111 ~61 388 --94,396 --8; IV 5. 7. 93 plcasurc 01' 11 240 1 Miles. Vera I 325
madncss 1 149 Marxism 11 29, 2() 1, 404; 111 96, 336 7, lll(,/lllgerie I 171, 1n 4. 177 millennium. ecologiea l idiom 111 293
pcrforming 11 27 341: IV 155 mental palienls I 208 - 9 Miller, A. R. 111 406
Madonna 11 1(JO masculinity. inlernalization of I V 52 and confl ict I 205 Mi ller, Arthur 11 279
Madras I 59, 64. 66 mask JI 180- 1 a nd no rmal ity I 205 - 6 Míller, Il enry 111 78
Mac. Pearlie 1111 84- 6 as 1'01111 0 1' rcpression I1 181 basic task I 2 13 Miller. P.e. 1 219
magneti<.: encrgies I 293 Mass 1 266 mer<.:antilist pate rn alislll I 75 M iller, Perry IV 165
Ma gritte I 117 Illass-media cu lt ure J 67 Merce C LLnninghéLIn Dan<.:e CO lllpany Mi ller. Tim IV 273 , 278
Mailcr, Norman 1 14, 204; IV 3. 8. Masten , J. IJ 97 11 197 mimesis 11 5; 111 85
13 -· 14.16 - 17 Malador 11 403 Mer<.:hant, Carolyn 111 295 pleasure 01' 11 239
Major Art I 246 material culture IV 230 Merleall-Ponty, Maurice I ~60; 11 286, Mimelic Principie 1 77
Malagasy Republic 111 37.44 ¡falerialisl Fel1linisl17 and ¡he Pufilics (J/ 291; I V 97..1) mimicry IJ 160
male sexua lity 11 58 J)iscourse IV 156 Merriam, A. P. 111 361 Mind Breolhs IV 196 ·-7
malc versus femalc 11 ~5 mathematical metaphors IV 42, 65 Merrima<.:k Repertory Compa ny 01' Mines, Maboll 11 110; IV 318
Mallarmé f 129; 11 3 and feminist thougllt IV 45 - 9 Lowell , Massilchusctts 111 295 Minh -h<t , Trinh T 11 397; 111 99
Mamet , David I 158; 111 294 mathemati<.:s as feminine pursuit IV 42 Mcssi nger, Sheldon L. I 15, 203; 111 45 Minimal Art 11 396; IV 166
Man Ju ggling Paekages I 125 matter and space 111 7 lHelahiSIOrv 111 109 minim alislll 11 175
Manichaean myth 111 129 Matthews. Brander 11 82- 3 metaphor Minneapo lis-St. PaullU 154
Ma nn. Anthony 1 334 Mature, Victor I 335 key-words as 1 109 M intz, Sidney Il 340-- 1
manned space program 111 21 MauroTl, Charles 11 244 performance aS 1 108 - 37; IV 93 Mirabeau 111 262
Mannheim I 84 /v/oyerfillg I 334 theatre as 1 112--13 Miranda , Carmen 11 346
Mansfield , J ohn J 245 Mayne, Judith 11 286 metaphorie knowledge I 289 mise-ell-uhYl1le 11 43
Manson , Charles 111 150 Mead , George Herbert IV 97 metaphysical c1aim , pcrforrnan<.:c I 154 rn.ise-cll-scelle I 148 , 153 - 7,299- 300;
1844 Manuscripls 111 378 meaning metaphysical energics I 303 - 6 11 9, 8\ 95
Mappillg ldeofogy IV 381 abscnce 01' IV 209 Illetaphysi<.:s I 352 Misler, N. 111 345 - 6
Maranda , E, K. 111 50 and memory 111 121 - 2 Cartesían approach to 111 5 Miss .fufie 11 8 1
Maral-Sade 11 30 semiot i<.: domain 01' 111 97 of presence 11 112 Mitchell , Frank IV 196
Marcus, George E. 11 95 social structllre 01' I 74 of Wcstern theatre 11 11 Mitchell , Juliet IV 50
Marcus, Lcah 11 95 AIeas/./re fuI' ¡'vieasure I 197: JlI 310 Metopsye/¡ufogicuf Suppfel11enl 10 lhe Mitehell , Tony IV 362
I'vl arcuse. Herbert I 170, 178- 9, 183: mechanical performance 1 127 Thl'ory o/ J)/,e(/rns 1I 12 mnemonic fUTl<.:tions, legal gesture
111 264, 273. 394, 397 rnechanical reproducibility IV 325 - 6 melis 111 89 11 134- 6
Marett. R, R. I 53 mcchanism 01' the stage I 147 meton ym ical conne<.:tions I 114 Mnou~hkin e. A ria ne 11 225 ; J V 310
margin ali slll . use oftenn U 395 mecol1lwissol1ce 11 36, 287 Metropolítan Mllsellm 01' Art IV 190 Model Reader 11 222
Marinetti IV 304 mcdia culture Metz, Christian 11 255, 287 - 8, 290, 292, Model Spectator 11 222
rnarionctte 11 180- 1 (tnd spect<ttoria l theory 11 282- 99 294 rnodern dance 11 347
Mark , Thornas IV 332. 340, 342 as domain 01' intereonnections Meyerhold. V. 111 ; 11 179. 181 ; Modern Dramo I 5; 11 314
Marks, Vicloria TI 199 I1 28~ 111 344 - 5.347 - 8, 350- 1: IV 213 Mode rn Times 111 354
Marranea, Bonnie 111 298- 9 plura lity of 11 284 Miami ol1.d Ihe Siege o/Chicago IV 16 Modern Trogedy 11 327- 8
mHrriage lfI 5 1 possibilities 01' staring down 11 291 Michelson, Annette 11 114, 396: IV 206 modern ism
performalive force 11 91 sexlla li ty 01' look ing n 287- 9 micro-rnicro descriptivism I 19 1 mt within 11 175
marriage eeremony 11 128 media diseourses 11 283 mi<.:rophysical traces 111 76- SO collapsing Ill40
Marriage de Figaro 111 262 media tion rni¡;ropra¡;tical flows 111 76 ·80 defmition 11 395 - 6
Marsh. A. IV 27 1 presence 01' IV 306 - 22 micropractical prodll<.:tion and M odle~ki. Tania 111 323 - 4
Marshall. O¡¡vid IV 92 theat re of IV 31 8- 20 rcp roductioll 01' ideology in l,,(ogol1lho I 329
Marshall . S. E. I 240 Illed ia lized culture IV 382--3, 386 ewryday life IJI 93 - 11 Moi. Tori l 111 307

41() J3 'J
 i\l tlk'~. AIIl Il IIiIIII 11 .'.JI)
11111 11 " " lI ll1i lll ', rll I lOS ; 11 \.1 1 ~Jr ll", i..., ./1 111.\11/. ,/1. " /',, ',','1' 1 1¡, \ , I 17,1
NI' ''I'/I/lIf/JI' 'I ' /
I\-h,lí ," " 11 X,I 111 124
11111 11111 11 111'11 :. 11 I II a 1 social rc lal iol\s ¡¡lid -' 1\) !1) IICuW lll clrics 111 1)
MOl/da \' Nig /¡{ hl()If,¡fl! 111 J,~O ;ap ilalr ,~11I 111 31\4 92 111 )' 1 Ir ami pla y 1 \\) " Neve r A ga in Wo uld Birds' SOllg Be
MOl/do J IJ()(}: A Usa 's (;"ide Iu lIle Nell' multi medi a I 11\7 lhc SaI11C" IV 12
!;ilgl' IV I 59 multiple bases IV 43 NlIgél . f ho mas 1 ]() 1 Ncvillc, R ichard 111 274, 278
IllUlICy fo r pt.: rformallccs I 21 7 multiple oppression IV 47 Nahal, Derlll is 11 1q3 New Critieism 11 322, 324
MOIlI.. , Meredith 11 110; 111224- 5; multiplicit y o f egos 1 142 Na'ibi, M , IV 10 New Freneh Cri tieism IV 195
IV J26 multiva lence of co m modit y 111 377 83 nakcd body 11 16S9 New H armon y Cornlllunity I 238
Mo nk , Philip IV 362 Mulvey, L. 11 37, 46 ,287 -8, 293; Noked Si}(lces: Uvil1g is Roul1d 1I 398 Ne w Kids 01.1 the Block 11 343
MOllstrous Regimenl 111 297 111 306, 313, 315: IV 261 Na rad -¡n uni 1267 " new philology" 1 200
MOlltagu, A shley IV 52, 57 Ml1JJk , E rika 111 350 narcissism , dialectical partner 01' 11199 new technology IV 351 64
Montano, Linda 111 210: IV 257 Murphie, Andrcw 16: IV 351 narratives 11 259 a nd puppetry IV 368
Montrelay, Michele IV 252 . 258 Mu rphy , Eddi e IV 76 amollg historians 111 25 Ne w Theatre U 224
Moore, M ichael 111 387 M urray, Timothy 11 1(JO a mI philosophy of scienee UI 29 Ne w York Cit y 11 351 ; IV 66
rv!oore , S. F. 111 123,126.128 M usafar, Fakir 11 170 as knowlcdge 111 112 Nieh o lls, Peter IV 360- 1
Moraga , C herrie IV 44 - 5, 47 Museum of Modern A rt 111 321; IV 194 as performance 111 27, 30 Nich o ls, Mike 111 260
lIloral character musie I 79, 359- 60; IH 162 authoritative 111 27 N ielsen 11 272
assessmcnt 1 149 and danc'C 1 46 - 7 ctic and emic ways of rcgarding Niepce 11\7
rc adings I 149 listening to IV 112--50 111 112: fina lit y 01' IV 359- 61 N iell.sehe, f-riedrich 11 5- 6, 15, 17- 18.
moral enquiry 1 149 order, and entertainment 111 355 - 8 generation 111 122 25 , 177 , 275: 1lI 363-4: IV 93 , 230
moral implications of performance transportation of 11 346 llolism of 111 27 Nigeria IV 31 - 3
111 134 - 48 .\'('(' olso recordings 01' taet 111 98 Nightsea Crossing JI 185
Illoral judgements 1 329 ¡'vIusic (//1(1 Tro/7ce 111 365 pJeasure 01' 11 237- 8 nihilism 11 28 - 9
1110ral object I 149 musical eompleteness I 373 production 111 29- 10 Nin , Ana'is 1 235
moral selves, assessmcnt of I 150 musical execution IV 339 role 01' LlI 112 Nitseh , H, IV 207 8, 235- S, 240 , 243 ,
moral training I 149 musical perfOrlllanCe rv 313 types of 111 I11 245, 326
Morol!y We Rol! Along I 243 age nt performance 1 389 narrativity , a bsence 01' IV 215 Nixon , R icha rd 11 1 24
Morgan , Charles 1 196-7 audicnce 1 375 Natanson . M. 11 180 No MC1I/ 's LalllJ 111 31 ()
Morgenstem I 193 causal immcdiacy 1 381-2 National Endowment ror the Arts Noether. Ell1ll1y 111 27
M orris, Christopher 111 217 causal sincerity I 381 (NEA) IV 275 - 6, 278 - 9 Nolan , Jill IV 360
Monis, Lori 111 151 eonditions for I 377 National Performance Review (report) Ilominalism I 82
Monis, Meaghan 11 330 genuinencss 1 381 I 179 non-acting 11 185; IV 22, 32
Morris, RobertlV 167, 170- 1. 173 historical authenticily 1 381 NOliollal RevielV o/Uve ArllV 219 non-matrixcd pcrforllling 1 3\2
Monis, Wendy IV 281 integrity, agency, and responsibility native language 111 94 1l0n-matrixed repre~e nta ti()11 1 31012
Morris, William 111 344 1 380 - 91 naturalisrn 1 82- 3; 11 225 non-matrixed symbolization 1 310
Morrison , Jim 111 263 integrity an d ritual continuity and science I 84 110norganic life I 184
Morrison , Toni IV 68 1177- 80 Nature as rnyth 11 83 nonsense 111 66
Moses 111 25 , 30 integrity of 1371 - 93 NOly o.\'oslra 1 278 - 80, 28 2, 284, 28 7- 8; activities 111 65
¡Hother Couroge I 288; 1128: 111314 interpretive consistency in I 376- 7 11224, 387 license for 111 65
motion-capture IV 372-·,) phenomenal performance 1 389 Ndembu 111 108- 33 nonsense-ma ker 111 71
Illotions. making 11 124 - 53 primary integrit y t'a etors 1 372- 4 Neal, Larry IV 75- 6 Noonan , Jud ge 111410
Mouffe, ChantaI1ll37:l , 392; IV 156 ring modulator in I 383, 386- 8 Needharn , Rodney IU 366 normativity IV 269- 88
Moulthrop, Stua rt IV 159 seconda ry integrit y factors in 1 174 - 7 negation principlc I 301 Norr,is , Christopher 11 111
Mounet-Sully 11 ' 6 skill and accomplishment 1 384 negative capability 1 270 Northall , Petcr 111 216
1Il0Velllent, changing Iexieons 01' 11 344 structural discontinuities I 376 - 7 NI!,f!.o/¡alil1,f!. Ihe Per/imnal/ce, 1 162 Northern curopcan I 161
Movclllcnt Research 11 351 tate nt in I 385 Negroes I 204: 11 140; 111 65. 68 Norl!Jel'/1 E::xposure 11 292, 296
Illovement style and meaning 11 336 - 8 musical scnsitivity I 384 Neher, A. 111 364 Nol 111 289--90
lIlovics s('(' cim:ma; film M Llsset II 246 Nehring, N, IV 270 Novak , Kim 1 325
M owatt. I\ rllla Cora I 236.. 7 !vIy Darlillg Clemenline 1 335 Nelson , Richard 11 112 I1son,f!.'u 111 113
Mude, V, L IV 31\ My Fool. My Tufor 1 322 Nclson , T heodore rv 400 Nuha people rv
36, 3R
M ¡¡lIcr, IIcillcr I 164; 11 116, 399: My Ufe III 261 l1eo- Ma rxislll 1 191 , 201 Nub" practice:; IV 39
111 298, J07; IV 153 ~ 1C} Mycr ho ff, B. 111 121 , 123, 126.121\ neo -posil ivism I 191 nu d ea r fi ssion 111 24

,nx 1" )

 I N f1I JX f N lit X

IIIIIhl V ()Il\\l llt'ICllpIII II. M. IV 2(, Pi' Ik s ¡IS t ¡;'~l ill l-' g rlllllld 1 120 a~ c\c!rallgc pr Ilto" .~ bc!wccll l!re t\:x l
1~ "'I;ill' I !J \ 247; 11 /JO
opaq lIf! ::.iglls 11 242 P"J'SOIlS , (' . R. IV \2.\ illld iludicncc 1 141
ill 111.'I'I"oI'llIOlIl\:c 11 ~ l) (,O
ope n pe rformanccs 11 223 I'arson~ , Ta kull IV 52 as fralllc 111 35
NUIIII, Tn:vol' 11 101
O pen Theatre I 154, 320 part icipant l:njnymelll 1 2X 1 as IlH::taphor I 108 - 37
oppositional mo vement. discursivc panicipatory IhealJ'e IV 40X as pedagogy I 150
O¡¡k R iuge National Laboratory 111 20 produetion 01' 111 390- 2 particle detector constructioll 111 n as protective ritual I 148
(l h\ldicncc amI silence 11 176 oppression IV 47- 8, 50 Passos. Dos I 83 as representation without production
()IJ(;rllll l \lllege 11 204 apt ieal tclesco pes 111 23 Pater's dictum IV 188 111 396
()hcro n , Merle I 325 opus operaLUm 111 83 - 4 palh-depelldent nonclassical as ritual I 147- 50
.,hjl!ct-art amI performance art IV 298 oral epics 111 49 phen omenon 111 25 as role playing I 140
IIhjeclhood ami an IV 165 S7 ora 1 interpreta tion and performancc Patraka, Viv ian 1 12; 11 87 ; 111 234 as surrogation 11 98
u hjcctificalion 11 177 studies 1 225- 7 patterning of performance 111 42- 8 as \Vomen 's work I 253- 6
Ohlivion , Brian IV 381 oralliterature tri 33 Paul , Randolph In 239 Big Bang of I 185
On.:idental theatrc 11 10 oral poetry I 219, IV 197 Pav is. Patriee I 299- 300; 11 122: categories I 127
(kcidcnlal theory 11 6 oral texts I 219 111312- 15, 414,419 characteristics of I 138
Odin Tealrc! 11 226 oral trad itions I 162, 219 Pavlov , Ivan 111 347 code 1 138
rli.\.I'i 11 384 - 5, 388, 390 oruea l rituals 11 170 Paxton, Joseph 111 301 concept(ion) of I 292: IJI 18 , 33
(kdipu.l' I 276- 7, 310- 11 ; IJ 34, 36, 51. o rder and rh ythm ie sensibilities IJI 362 Paxtoll, Steve 11 202. 204 wnditiolls of r 130
53, 274; 111 325 Oresleia I 304; 11 277; 111 201 P.B .S. JI 351 deconstructing I 118
Odschlaeger, Max 111 298 O"gy Mystery Theatre IV 235- 8 Pechuel-Loesehe I 53 deflnitions 11 - 2,106,126- 7.141:
01 Gramlr/olo!ogy I 351; 11 83, 111: Oriental religions 111 130 pedagogy, performance as I ISO 11 88
IV 195 Orientalism 11 382 Pelias , Ronald J . I 215 difficu!t y of describing 1 359
Ojjending Ihe Audience 13 21 - 2: 11 249 , Orif!,in o{ Ihe Specie.l 111 297 Peliea11 effeet 1 111 disruptive features of 11 232- 3
274 Orriz. Ralph I 320 Pelletier, Poi 11 384 - 5 d omain 01' 1 11 9
(rGorman , K. 11 290, 293 Ottenberg. S. IV 26 pelvie arlieulation 11 342 emergent qualily of 111 48-53
Ogundc, H urbert 11 375 OUI ollhe Crisis l IT 349 pelvic grinds 11 342 energy in I 294
O-H Theatre m 7 outsidedness 111 99 pC'lvic rno tion 11 344 ethnog rap hy 01' 111 40, 43
Ohno, Kazuo 11 169 outsider theorists I I 10 pcnis vs. phallus JI 40 forms of I 110- 1 1
01 L (Oregonians for 1ndependent outsourcing III 387 Penley, Conslanee 11 44 - 7; 111 249 - 50 generic applieations 1 157
Living) 11 203 Oxford Speech Festival I 245 Penn State Symposium for Culture, historical origi ns IV 351
Okcy, L. L. I 252 Perform ance Art and Pedagogy keying 111 40 1
Old Rituals for New Space I 174 pagan magic I 80 IV 280 mcanings of the word 1 I 2
Old Testament I 296 Pagel , Elaine IV 337 Pepper. Steven 111 111 - 12 Illetaphysical claim I 154
Oldenburg, Clacs 1319 Paik , Nam June IV 142 perform , coneepts I 292 mora l implications of 111 134 411
O!elll1l111 I 113 pain IV 247- 1\ performan ce 11 86 - 108 nature of 111 34 8
Olcszko, Paul IV 254 Paine. R . 111 62 Performance: Crilica! COllcefils 1 2, nonreproducti ve 111 322
Olson , Charles 11 121 Paine, Torn 111 255 16- 17 object 01' IV 188 - 205
Orni , MichaellV 52, 57- 60 Pain (t) I 263 performance 01' represelltation I 142
oll1ioko IV 34 painting 1120; IV 168 - 70, 174, 301 , acti vit ies as 1 205 oftime 1 139
011 Being B/l/e I 190 328 analysis, psychoanal ytic and on tology of 111 320 - 35: IV 382 , 392
0 /1 Our Backs 11 70- 2 Panigrahi . Sanjuktha 11 384 -5, 388 - 90 ethnographic approaches IV 131 original impulse ror IV 351
'/1 Ih e !Ir! vl lh e TheOlre 11 81 Panofsky IV 293 - 6, 300 analysis of tcrms 1 138 - 52 paradigllls of I 181
O' Neill 11 305 Pant he ism I 76 - 7 and acting 1 139 patlerning 01' 111 42- 8
O ' Neill , Eugenc 11 84 Pap ua- New Guinea I 275 and production 111 11 - 31 perfonnativity as 1 157
Ong. Walter 1 341 Paradise LosI I 268 and represcntation I 139 phenomenological approaehcs 1 145
onlillc cornmullities I 187 Paradise NOlV 1 312- 13, 319; 11 377; and theatricality I 160 prelilllinary speciflcatioll I 139
onomatopocia 11 11 IV 306, 318 and writing 11 119 presentness of I 116
olllological difference 11 182 PartllUalll1a 11 390 approaches to 1 138 52 principie of 1 108
Olllalogical- H ys lcric 'fheatre 111 4 - 5 Paris is Bl/minf!, 11 100: IV 114. 149 as allscnce 01' IIlcaning IV 209 ritu a 1 proccss as 1 119
olllological spheres I 294, 303 Par;:; RerielV IV 5 as aJic nated fabou r I 17X role of I 139
Olllt,lllgy 01' pe rforlllam:e 111 320- 35; Pa rk er. A . I 156: 11 89- 92, 94; JII 243. as Jisp lay I 234 6 scicncc as 111 22
IV 3112, 3'12 336, 339, 393 5, 397 as c"ccss I 13') st:llI<1ntic cvotutio n 1 110

40 ¡I¡J I
 N r! ex I N U 1 .'\

'W lld, U! IIIIII 111I 1~·I [1.11 .1,11.'1111111 1 ..'1:i .11 pl·rfmllljll ~ . IllrlllS nI' I 1 10 11 phllllctic spcech 11 1(1
ill 111 <;2
~Ul' l lI l ~ 1I11 ~'IIII'l; PIl I ""IIICI 1111 ~.11 S Ix:rrorllling arts I 11X, 129; IV .W9 pholleti<.: tex 1 11 6
~ pl'l' llil' rok "Iuycd by I I:I~ "',IUlllalc rol' I 2 17 pnforrning self IV 3 21 phonctic writing 11 12
le ~ I a lid SlIhjctl I 141 S sexual ditl'crence in 1 2:\2 perma ne nt performance I 142 phonetics 111 112
Ihco ry lllO text in 1 219 ·20 Perrcault, John I 310 phonic signiflers I 355
1I1HIlI,III1iliablc I IIX use of term I 215 persolHlgc pbonological fealures I 328
lISl~ oflerllll 114. US, 153- 7,215; performance theory I 130, 288 actor as 1I 163- 6 photo-effeet 1 144 5
1\1 -'45 , 3%- 7; IV 111, 130. 214 basic concepts 1 218 cxteri o r 11 164
photography IV 188- 9 , 301
IIses 01' pcrl"ormer\ body I 154 philosophical backdrop lO 1 157 speclators 11 164 as performance art I 116

1'('ljiml/(/I/("(, (/I/e/ Culll/ro! Po!ilic.\' 11 86 performance writing JI 119- 23 personal irresponsibility I 77 as quintessentiaJ art of reproduction
perfllrlllanCl' art I 111, 116; JV 131,152. as frame 11 120 personality 11 231 I 117

269 - 88 definition 11 119 in scie ntific aClivity 111 17

performative qua lity of I 117
and live arl IV 219 origins 01' I1 120 pcrversion 11 7- 8 physical realm 177
ami object-art IV 298 terminal points 01' 11 122 Peterson, Eric I 233 physiognomie a nalogue IV )72
and traditional theatre 11 49 use of term 11 119 Pelile anatol1lie de /'il/1age 11 25 Piea , W illiam 111140
histcry 01' IV 218, 220 Performance Writing Symposiulll Petan , Sandor 111 261 Pik e, Kenneth 111 112
photographs as I } 16 11 12 1 Petrovic. Gajo 111 337 Pi!grim 's Progre.I',I' IV 222
role 01' IV 270·- } performative, use of term I 153 Petruchio 1141 - 2
Pin , Lu<.:Íano In ga IV 209
lJnited Sta tes IV 193 performative acts I 126 Pfohl, S. rv 27 1
Pinter, H. 11 159; 111 202,294, 30]

lI~eofterm IV 218 and gender constitution IV 97- 110 P!lIIedrus 11 18; IV 195 Pirandello, L. 11 82; 111 259; IV 93

W¡lmcn IV 251 - 68 performative evellt I 122 phallocentric vocabula ry 01' PIXAR 11 70

pcrformance behaviour I 264 performative modality and spectator contemporary psychoanalytic place of desire IV 207
pcrformance-centered perspective 111 72 11 285 - 6 theory 11 )4 pl ague and prcsence IV 121
performance energies I 300- 3 performative sentencc I 9) phalloccnlrisrn 11 35 - 7,40 - 2, 46 plastic represcntation 11 12
Performance Event-Time-Space chart performative speech 11 91 ; 111 )23 phallogocentrism 111 324 Plato 1 55 · 6, 74, 233 . 292· 4. 299;
I 120 performativc utterance 1 9\ 95; 11 89 phallus vs, penis 11 40
11 7· 8, 17-· 18,262; 111 25, 15, 255 ,
performance grollp I 288; 11 99, 376 performative VR I 180 phamwkol/ 1 184
257.337 , 363 ; IV n, 195

performance integrity I 382 performatives I 92 - 3 Phelan. Peggy I 11, lID. 115- 17, 119, Platonism 1/1 364; IV :1346

performance paradigm 11 96 contractual I 94 122. 125- 6, 153- 4; 1187, 213 , play

performance place and space In 245 - 7 performativity I 118; 11 86 - 108; 382, 386 - 8, 390; III 248, 288 . and comic I 40

pcrrllrmance-prod uction mode} 111 20 IV 395 - 410 120, 395 - 7, 405,413 - 15.417 19; and culture 1 19

performance ritual I 14} and praxis 111 336 - 4) IV 152- 3.271.382

and holiness I 50
performance science ni 149- 68 and production 111 372- 5 phenomenél
and language 1 )9
efllcacy of 11\ 169-·72 as performance I 157 a ppearancc of 1/1 12
and laughter 1 40
performance- spectator relationship Austinian 11 92 classica 1 11\ 12
and myth 1 )9
11 221, 224 - 6 conception of IV 114 path-dependent 111 12
and real life 11 374
performance studit:s I 111. }55, 16 1; discovering IV 228 presence of 111 14
and r,i tual I 39, 50- 1, 54 5
\1 88 - 9. 93 in drama tic performance 11 ')3 phcnomenological difference 11 182 and seriousness 1 49

accountabil ities and responsibilities lilerary engagements with 11 86 phcnomenology 111 5; IV 97- 110 ¡rnimals 1 )6

1 254 meets theatricalily I 153- 67 Philippincs 111 17

as function 01' culture I 38

and oral interprt:tation I 225 - 7 of language IVII) Philipsen , G. I 221

as necessity I 42-)

Anglo-American rubric I 160 philosophical usages of I 155 Phillipps, Katherine 111 116
as opposite of seriousness I :19

as women's work I 232- 60 productivc 01' antiproductive Phillipson . M. 111 52

<lS significant forlll I 38

audiencc in I 224 - 5 1/1 392- 7 philology I 199

as volunt<try activity I 41

defining characteristics of model I 226 use of term I 153, 179-- 80 philosophical action 1 352
be<tutiful 14)

dclinition I 2 18 performed memory 1/1 89 philosophical backdrop to perforlllance biological purpose 1 37

epistemology I 218 -27 performers I 114 theory I 157

concept 1 41
dhical/moral implication of amI audience 1348; n 374 Phi!o,wp/¡iCII! Itll'('sligalilJlIs 111 80 disinlereslt:dness 01' I 42
performer's role I 255 as hysteric~ 1 252- 3 philosopbical usages of pcrforlllativity esscntial qu a lities 01' 14)
eve nt in I 220 1 in pcrl'ormance studies I 22} 5 I 155
exccption ul and spc<.:ia l positio n 01'
hi~lorical accollnts 1234 tran ~llo rtcd ¡lIld transforllled phili.lsophy \) 1' scicl1l:c 111 21)
1 4 'i
I!lClhlldllln!!.y I 2 18 27 1 263 'lO p lHlllClll b 111 1/ 2 fmlllal <.: ha ra<.:lerist ics I 45 6

¡.p \ 1\

 I ~ ,"P------------- rl'! 1 '1 ,

111 11 01 1 \/
,1.'\ 11 11 ,'1 111'1 11> 11 1 1'\ 1 porll ll).(1lI ph )l ,,1 III('d iul ioll IV JO(, 22

111 11 11 1.'1 " " 111, I ·~h

, 1.,d l ,I ~·I I '1r 1\ 1 .144 ddillilioll 11 5R radical 11 111

lilllilalioll as lo S p il l.:C 143

I;! lhlh,g"ll'hiL~ slance in I 34.\ funclio n nI" 11 '57 (l/so body

.1'('('
IlIa in eh a ractcrisl ies 1 42
exalllplc 1 347 la ng uagc or 11 62 prcsentatioll 01" sdf 1 97- 107
1I11,;II1 a l c1 I,; IIIL'1I1 14(, impcrfectiolls 1 344, 366 pllwe r balance in 11 (¡3 detlnition of si tuation beforc otbers
na lun: :ind signifieancc nI' 1 36 - 56 in conternporary cultu re 1 ~ 39 scxuality ano gcnd.:r in " 57 75 1 102
urde.. 1 4.\ intersubjccti vity in 1 36 1- 5 post-Enlightenlllent " 140 presentations 111 11
pl ace inlhc scheme oflifc 137 logocentric I 349- 50 post-esscl1 tialisrn IV 11 2 Presiden lÍa/ Papen ' rv 14
PlalO nie dcllnition 1 56 performance of 1 350 post-Foroism 111 386·-7 preventi ve practices 1 105
prilllary q uality 01' 1 37 pcrfomlance 0 1' a uthorship 1 344 l) post-lirninal rites 1 29 Price, Jonathan 111 268
prilllonJial quality nI' 137 presenee of author I 349 post-modernism 1 164; 11 35 - 6, 39, 50. Price, Richard U 340- 1
rca lity 01' 1 38 prob lcm s 01' contemporary languagc 285. 359- 60, 369, 395 -- 404
pricstcraft 1 267
ritual as 1 50 ano cornmunication 1 35 ~ anO. lelllinislll IV 251 - 68
primary integrity l~lCtors 1 372- 4
rules I 44 radicalism 1 340 use of te rm " 395
primary structures IV 166
sccrccy 01' 1 45 sign systems in 1 358- 9 post-struct uralis11l 1 139. 154: 11 86 primitive ritual 1 55
significant funct ioll 01' 1 36 souno qualities 1 353 Post-Virtual Reality: After the Hype Is primitive ~ heatre and c ruelty 11 20
superfluous 1 4 1 staging 1 343 Over 1 172 principie oC altered balance 11 23 1
tension in 1 44 transactiolJs 1 362 Po urroy, J. IV 366, 370 principie of Icast comrnitment 1 11 3
vs. rcality 1 210 transitions betwen different signifyi ng powe r 11 27 -8 principie of opposition 11 231
play-character 1 49 media J 35 1
cntertain11lent as 111 357- 8 principie 01' primacy of performance
play-comlnunity 1 45 usc 01' terrn 1 342
images of 11 279 ·80 111 12

play-mooo 1 51 venucs 1 343

in sexual and gcndcr role play" 69 principie of simplificatio n U 231

P/{/JI!70)' orIlle We.\"/('m Wor/d IV 387 poets, speaking tours 1 340 in social-political and sex ual principie ofsurplus energy 11 231

pl<lys 1 317 points ofview IV 2 14 situations 11 58 PrincipIes o! Scienlijic Managemenl

ano culture 11 313 - 33 Poirier, Richard 1 14; IV 3 power balance in pornograph y IL 63 111 346

oisciplinary blino spots 11 313 - 33 Poland 111 215 ·16 power relations 111 88 print , ascendancy of IV 304

Illooern 11 313 - 33 po larivltion 11 35 powcr structure 11 399 print culture 1 344 - 5; IV 157- 60

s('(' a/so ora ma Polhemus Inc. IV 372 practical consciousness, c11lbod iment of production 111 372- 404

/ '/ease p/ease /11(' rv 224 Polish Theater Laboratory 1 154 111 8891 and performance 111 11 31
pleasure po litical-economics of convcrsationa l practical jokes 1 105 and pcrformativity 111 372 5
ano oesire 11 247 turn-taking 111 85- 8
practicality 111 81 - 5 a nd social rela tions nI 375 - 6
as totality 11 246- 7 political ecomony 11 30
practice and structure 111 92 co ncept of 111 18, 24
limits of 11 247 political economies of space 111 100
Pratt, Mary Lou ise 111 374, 397 in experimental enquiry 111 14 - 19
of speetators 11 236 - 48 political thcatre 111 266 - 9; IV 221
praxis and perforl1lativity 111 336-43 increased size 111 23
Plekhanov, George 111 262 po1itics 11 30
Preedy, novelistic incidcnt 1 99- 100 personal style in IIJ 16
Plillloth Plantation 1 120 of aesthetics 11 341 - 4
preliminal rites 1 29 rhythln and the control of 111 358 62
pluralism 11 395 - 404 ofcu ltura l studi.:s I 160
Prescott Smok i cultura l preservation science as 111 22
use 01' term 11 395 of discoursc 1 153 - 67
group 111 139 productivity IU 21

poetie language 111 80 of experience tri 75 - 107

presence 11 109-- 18. 182- 3: IV 168, profundity and irnmodality 1 95

P(}('lícs 1 77. 113, 282: 111 11 8 polyrhythms of West African rnusic 172
promiscs in bad failh 196

poetry 1 77 ; 11 9 111 362- 4

absence of IV 307
protest

and science 11 13
po lyvocalit y 111 100
aesthetics of IV 192
dramaturgy of 111 266- 92
cognitive elernent of 1 353
Pontalis. J-B. 11 253
and plague IV 321
methodological considerat ions
conlclllporary 1 343, 347, 366
Pontbriand. Chantal 1 5- 6: 11 117;
and representation IV 312- 16
111 272- 4
dream of triumpb 1 343 ·-4
IV 323 , 36 1
and visual arts IV 316·- 18
modernist traditions of In 270
oral lile 1 366
Pop or Op Art 11 396; IV 166
distrust 01' 11 183
Protestant Reformation 11 126
oral stage 1 338- 70
Pope John Paul 11 1 275
idealization 01' 11 110
Provincetown Players 111 254
sound 1 353 4
Poppe, E. 11 227
inverse relationship to language
proxemic movement IV 371 2
poClry readings 1 338 70 popu lar culture 111 101
11 183
Prynne, J. H. 1 356- 8, 360; IV 92
alldiellcc 1 344 popular dancing " 344
mctaphysics of 11 11 2
pscudo-presence IV 191
:I vanl -gard l.' 1 340 pop ula r proles l, 1<1rTI1S 01' JlI 269 70
ncgotiating IV 351 64
pscudo-staternen ls I 9 1
cOlll clllporary 1 35 1 popu la ri/:J li PII 111 27
1101 ion 11 109
pSydlic dcvclopment. oral stage 1 353

14 lil 'i
 , NI":"
I N D I;X

,,,..yclli..: l'\1'~1 íCII":L' 01 so,,"d I .154 1{lIhl:l" l ~rvt, 11 2/15 RCCi ver. J. R. 111 .N represcntation/slIbjectivity J 146
I)~yd"l' sl'k:l!rll 11 " ra\.:~,I!llkgoríZ;llíOll on hasis uf rl'cciwd acting,!a\.:tor 1311 ,- 12, 314 rcpresentational theatre I 143, 146
I'sychn;lllalysí;l (isl;llld) I X6 IV 57 61 rcccption, different levels of 11 222 representatioDalism I 142
p ~yc ho;rn;rl ysis I 1S4; 11 13. 34 5. 39. race differencc II 341: IV 386 rcclalllation IV 356 ..9 representati ve structure 11 7
41 , 43 race roles IV 53 rccognitions I 143 reprouuction 11 395; 111 380, 396;
"nd fc rninislI1 JI 47, 52-.) racial cross-dressing 11 346 rccontextuaJization , dance 11 349- 50 IV 327
ami scxuality 111 J09 racial·ethnic womcn IV 68 rccordings I V 332 , 334, 337- 8, 340, 342 République 11 27
(lsychoanal ytic raraJ igms IV J86 Ra cine, Jean I 159 : JI 237: 111 4 objections to IV 334, 339, 344 resalw 111 37
ps ychoanal yt ic theatre 11 14 raeism IV 44 Red Delachmenl o( Women 11 349 resea rch, theatrc of 11 225
psychoalla lytic theory 11 J5 Raucliffe-Brown 111 109 Red Nighl Specia/lV 124 resettlement programs fII 137
p~y choJrama I 184 R adha Krishna da nce 11 389 Red Room IV 225 residual culture 111 54
psychod ra rna I urgy 11 13 rauical activily , dramaturgy of Red Tapes IV 215 restoratioll of eve nts I 120
psychological crpproachcs to kíncsthesis m 253 ·65 Redfield, R. I 57 , 64,69 resto red behaviour I 119- 20, 123, 128,
I 250 radical humanizatíon ortheatre 11 176 Reugra ve, Vanessa 111 270 264
(lsychologieal clichés 11 289 rauicalism IV ~03 red ress ITI 117, 12 1, 123 R eusch, G. III 39
¡'lcrodaNy/l 177 radio talks 1 140 redressive violence IH 117 rev elation 01' knowled ge ll 184
Pllblic uramatizatíon 11 310 " rauio trottoir" 11 374 Recd , John 111 254 reversibility in modern capitalism
I'uhlic Enerny 11 342 Radway, Janice JI 367 RejleclüJ/ls O/l Ihe Rel'olUliol1 in Frailee 11 26
Pllhlic spcaking I 31 J Rafter, Nichole H. IV 62 111 254 R evolutionlor the Ilel! oI /1111 278
PlIhlic Theatre U 114 R agland-Sullivan , Ellie n 40 Rejlexes or Ihe Brain 111 347 revolutiollary energy I 303
PlIppel Theatre 11 179- 80; IV 31 rags I 45 reAcxivitylll121 Rexroth, Ken neth I 338
(luppetecr, iuentification with U 243 Rainbow Coalition 11 272 refllgees: stories of III 136- 7 Reynolds , Burt I 333
puppctry IV 365 - 80 Raincr , Yvortne 1147; IU 330; IV 126. rehearsals '1 119, 123, 130, 285, .174 rfU/psode I 292
and technology IV 367- 8 326 rc-inscription IV 356- 9 Rlwpsody in Blue I 373
deflnition of IV 375 Ramlila of Ramnagar I 264,266 - 7, Rcich , Steve IV 142 Rheinhardt, Max I 160
purifications anu rites of separation 280 reincarnation I 267 rhetoric of theatre 11 270
129 Ranciere, Jacques 111218, 341 Reinelt. Janelle I S, 153: IV 149 , 156 rhizomes 111 78
purificalory ritual I 86 Ranu Corporation LU 254 relationship 01' betrayal ' 11 7 R houes-Livingstone 1nstitute tu 110
Purscr 11 320 Ransom, John Crowe I 77; 11 319, 324 relativism 11 398 rh yme 111 40
"Putting in the Seeu" IV 11 rap music and associatcu uance styles religion 111 1:10- 1, 137 rhythm
Pygll1a/ioll I 75 11 343 Religioll a/ld Socie/y Among Ihe Coorg.\' and consciousness 111 364 6
Pyrnne, William I 235 rape-awareness performances IV 253 oj' South India I 58 and the control of production
Pyrrh us 111 266 Rappaport, Roy 111 128 religious belief-systems I 303 111 358 62
Raslila I 280 religiolls rites I 194: 11 138 and the performance of organiza l ion
(f(/II/boqol/ 111 38 rationalization 11 175 Renaissance 11 50 , 109. 111 , 117 111 353 - 71
Qua kers 111 J8 Rauschenhcrg 11 30 repetition 11 17, 20 - 1 implications 111 366 - 8
quality, concept of IV 180, 323 Rayner. Alice I 4: 11 249 rcpresentability 11 12 Rich , Adrienne IV 44, 46
l(uality control circles 111 350 Reau. A. 111 294, 299 rcpresentation I 145. 147; 11 16, 21 , 35 , Richards, 1. A. 11 319
QlIalls. Larry 11 115 Reau. Kenncth E. I 271 - 2 39: 111 12, 396
R icoeur, Paul I 198
l(uantum Illechanics 111 8: IV 224 reauing, use of term 111 177 and presence IV 312- 16
Ridless , R . IV 270
(!UARTETII399 reading "Ioud I 345 anu semiosis I 297- 300
Riefen stahl , Leni IV 38
Quasha, George IV 196 Rearling Ll/slimeda I 145 c10sure of 11 3 ·"24
Riggs, M. 111 [75 - 6, 195
l(uasi-syntactical abSlraction I 148 Reading Ihe RO/'l/ance 11 367 end of 11 9
rin g modulator in Illusical performance
"queen " culture, snapping in 111 180-·2 Rcagan , Ronalu 11 272 in drcams 11 12
I 383, 386 - 8
()ucer Nation 111 383 real anu virtual IV 381 - 2 logic of work of I 148
Ringling Brothers I 265; 11.210
<¡ueer perforrnativity IV 142. 144 - 9, real -time control IV 374 most na'ive fonn ofll 5
r-itcs I 162
153 - 4 rcalism I 82,85 movemcnt 01' 11 7
and ceremonies I 70
Qucsalid I 266 approachcs to I 316 of differcnce II 34
Riles de Possage I 174
<} lIick. Andrew IV 225 rea lities of the imagina ry IV 214 01' gender anu sexlIality 11 57
rites of entering a hOllse I 31
Q uinn , Michae l I 158: 11 163 reality , vs. p lay 1 210 of rc presentati o ns 1 116
rites 01' ex it 1 31
() lIiritary righl 11 129 re a lity efreet 111 221 .. 2 ofsexlIalit y " 34
rites 01' fro ntier crossing I 29
qllol;rtion 111 :;(1 Reas.\·clI/hlllR<' 11 39R use 01' 1(:1'111 11 !I
rites of passagc I '27,31, 174: m 123

446 111'/
 I N IJ II X 1N 1)1 \

I tLl" ; () I ~t'I':1 r :l llP Il a 11(1 pUl il iea ti ~) 1I ~ I 2') RU llcnn i, 1. Llc.: 1 11 22 5, 2.\3: IV .~ lO
sad isi il' pOl:lly 1 7'Ii S¡;lqcldahl I'elcr IV l O:!

1'1111;11 I :17 '), jld: 11 27X 9: 111 46 RondL /\ vital I 187; IV 158, 383
Sad()1I1 ~1~0l; histic practice 11 1>1) Schk gl: l 11 7')

ami play I .19, SOl, 54 ·5 Riintgen III 14, 18

Sa~~ d - Va ra . M~h I'Il¡tZ 11 2XX ScllInit. ['omas IV 134

ami l"Ilulille I XS RooseveJt. Fraokl in D . 111 J39

Said, I2dwilrd JI 382- 3 Sehncemann, Carolce 11 6(): IV 255 6,

as arl ;llld praclicc 111 80 - 1 Ro rt y, R ichard IU 298

Sl. Leon , M ark 11 210, 212 259 , 263

as cn uctment 111 125 RosakJo, Micbelle W 37

St. Vincent 111 311 , 43, 62 4, 67 Schneider, R. 11 88: IV 274

as pcrror mance 111 125 Rosaldo, M . l. IU 38- 9, 52

sales resistance to legal transaction Sch oe nmakcrs, I L U 230

as play I SO Rose. Barba ra IV 189

JI 137- 8 Seh onberg IJI 220, 223

ddinition 111 124 Rose, Jaequeline 11 33 - 4,40,42,47

Salique Law I 111 School of A merican Ballet II 336

clhnographic models of ll 9 3: !lat Rose, T ricia IV 122

Saltz, David I 5; IV 395 School 01" New C riticislll I 298

view 01' 111 127 Rosenberg, Harold 11 114; IV 189

Sampson , HarolJ '1 15, 203 Schram. P. I 219

in Illusical performam:e I 377-80 R osenberg T reaso n T rial n 165

San Bias C una III 45 Schrodinger's Cat III 5

liminal phase 111 129 Rosencrantz, Lind<l I 334

San D iego I 120 Schumacher. G. III 356

l1lany-layered 111127 R()sentrCln/z Clnd Guildel1.1'lel'll Are Dead San Francisco III 154. 160 Seh u1llacher, M ichael I 338

01' transgrcssion 1 148 11249 San fi-al1 cisco Chrol1ide I.I 369 Schwarz kogler. R ud oJ!' IV 189

01' mechanisms and praclices I 150 Rosenthal, Ra chel 11 60; IV 249, 260 , San Francisco Mime Trou pe 11 371: science

part icipants in III 126 265 1lI277 and natural ism I 84

passage form l LI 127 Ross, Andrew III 249- 50 Sanchez, Sonia IV 76 and pOl:try 11 13
performance as I 147 50 Roth. M oira JI 59 Sandin , Dan I 170 and the<ltre 1113-10
richly textured 111 126 Rothenberg, Jerome 1 350; IV 196 Sanskritic Hinduism 11 58-9 and truth I 250
ritual dance I 74 Rothstein, P. F. m 405,418 Sapir. Edward 111 32,110 - 11 as culturall practice IIJ 19- 24
ritual drama I 72- 90 R6tner, Florian I 181 Sarris, Andrew I 325 as illquiry III 19 24
ritual functionaries I 63 Rouget, Gilbert 111 365 Sartory, Barna von 111 301 as pcrrormance III 22
ritual interdictions 111 129 Rouse. John JI 88 Sartre, .Iean-Paul I 115; JI 180- 2, 286, as produetion 111 22
ritual observances I 282 Rousseau, J.-J. 11 16,83 - 4 290 - 1, 293, 297: 111 340; IV 100 comedy and hU1ll0ur in III 28
ritual portal I 30 routine and ritual I 85 Saussure, F. de 1 354 - 6. 358, 362- 3; cultural attitude III 11
ritual proeess I 268 Ro)' Co!7nlJack Smilh JI 164 II 111; 111 81: IV 93,195 essential aspeets of 111 28
as performance I 119 Royal Shakespearc Company II 371 Saussurian linguistics IV 195 narratives III 24 - 30
ritual purifieatioll I 80 Rubin , Gayle II 61; III 309; IV 103 Sauter. Willmar I 161 philosophy 01" III 29
ritual theory I 196 Rubin, G(J)erry JII 273 Savigli<lno. Marta IV 128 - 9 produet III 21
of drama 1 195 Rubin , Louis D. IV 78 Savighano, M. E. JI 87 soeiology oC 111 16
ritualistie practices I 140 rude acti vities III 71 Sawicki, Jana II 210 scientifie eOlll1llunity nI 13

ritualization 01" performance I V 235- 43 rude performances 111 72 Sayre, Henry II 360; 111413; IV 188 scientific experimelltation 111 18

Rivera, Jose III 293 rudeness III 66 Sayre, H. M. JI 368 scientific inquiry 111 18

Roach , J. I JI: 11 87 , 96 - 8; III 344, 347, rudimentary acting I 313 Scarry. Elainc 11169; III 324 and artistic practice 111 3

349 Ruffini , F. 11 220, 223 scenarios III 253 - 65 seientific knowledge. élntillomic

Noad ro Dama.w,'II.1' 11 310 Ruins Within 11 288 --9, 297 scenic representation 11 9 charaeter of III 17
Roberts, Oral 11 272 rules scenography Il 93 scientifi c 1llanagement III 347
Robinson, Am)' rn 382 as art and practice 111 80 -- 1 Schafer, Roy 11 42 scicntific methods III 25
rock formations I 123 tneordical status III 80 Schank . Roger I 124 seientifle naturali sm I 82
Rodc fer, Stephen 1 350 Runyon. Damon I 194 Schechner. R. I 2, 9. 12, 110- 11 , scientific performances I 126; III 12
Rodcnberg, Patsy I 360 Rushdie, Salman JI 402 11415.118- 21 , 123 - 4,126- 7. seientific research IH 19
Rogers, Richard A. I 11: III 353 Ruskin , John III 344 131, 184, 215 , 220, 222, 263 , 300- 1, seientific thinking III 28 - 9
I{okelll. Freddie I 291, Russian Constructivist theatre 11 178 321; II 88,98,110, 231 , 278,364, scientific truth I 83
Nol(/nel Bar/hes hy Roland Bar/hes Russo , Mary 11 191 376- 7,388; 111 100, 119, 167,268, SCOtl, Anna Beatrice IV 112
II I 322 Ryan , M ichael IV 20D 275 , 278 - 80.283 -- 4, 286; I V 22, 33, Scott. Jill IV 357
rllle playing I 146 Ryan. M. P. I 238 105, 2/0,407 Scott, P. B. IV 45, 50
Uol" - }'laving ({/1(1 fden/iry: T/¡e Limils (JI' Schelling I 359 SCOtl, Ridley I 169
711<'11/1'1' (/.1' AIe/aflhor IV 105 Sacks. H IJI 48, 52 Seh iller III 264 S'aeell I 139: I I I 306
Rn lo(T. L 1-[ I 244 Sacks, O livc r I .'ISO Schindler '.1' L is/ lLI 220 screen a cti ng I 324 - 37
RlllllC I 2~, )0 saer<l llll:! nl I R(I S('hi,\'II1 (lnel COlll inui/y tu 121 screeIH(:~1 o fth e Do uble IV 3111 94
R OIII/'{! /Inri JI/fic/ 11 íll\. 1(lO 2 s;¡ered ril cs I :"1 I 2 schilOid <lcling 11 178 SClllplill~ 1120

HH
11\)
 IN I N II Il.\'

\" tI, d l/lIg /;,/ N" tI"'''/,/i,;1I i" ('/1 /',//,/1(/1'1/ sl,'lh, ltk 1,,,n ~ClIst: didwlPlll Y 111 (,(, Sha w. Bcnlal'J I 7); 11 J 2 1 SiSlill1! ('ha pe ll 128
lI'illg \', lim ·.'tI /o:1II1'1'/lIilllll('/1I {l1/(1 sensihle I'erlúrrnancc 111 (,h Shaw, Pcggy IV 150 Six Ga llcry I XIX, ~ 4 (¡, :144
/11,' ,,>',,ltli,,II' IV 223 sen Il:IlCl!S, u:;c of I 91 S"('('I' Moy S(}I'e~v (ira::., I 373 sla vcry 11 340
S,'arlt:, A. 1101 sentimental gaze 11 271 Shepard , Sam 11 376: 111 2l)4, 298 ; Slim. Memphis 11 369
Sl:al'lc. John 1 109, 114: IV 97 serialilation I 378 IV 315 SI )', Christopher 11 36
S CC h CIH)V . Ivall 111 347 Serrano , Andres IV 275 Sherk, Bonnie IV 253 Smith, ¡\dam 111 :193
scclll,dary integrity factors 1 372, service occupation.5 I 103 Shennan. Stuart I 116: 11 116 Smith , Arma Deveare 11 97, 167;
.\74 7 Sessions, Georgc UI 298 Sherze r, D . lIJ 39 IV 154
,.. . ,,('(//(//' Ri/ua/III 12ú, 128 Settel, Zack IV 405 Sherzer, 1. 111 39, 44 - 7 Smith , Barbara JI 250; IV 45. 261
sccularization 111 ni Seven Types oj'Ambigui/y 11 324 Shetland Isle I 101 Smith . David IV 167, 172, 176
Scd!-'Wick, Eve 1 15ú: 11 89- 92, 94. sex IV 98- 102 Shillingsburg, P. L. 11 97 S1l1ith, Dorothy 111 150
DO- I: 1113.19: IV 144 - 5, 148, see ulso sexual ity Sh klovsky I 127 Smith, Jack 11 165
150 -- 1 sex as~ignment , cl'iteria fol' IV 55 Shlepianov, llia nI 345- 6 Smith , Julian Maynard rv 225
sceing, pleasure (JI' 11 239 sex categoriza tion IV 55 Shlink 11 272 Smith, MichaellV 211
Segura , Dcnise t\. IV 48 sex-gender system 111 309- 11 S/¡oah 1 295 Smith. Sue 11 200
S~ k(). Mobuto Sesc 11 366 sex roles I 194; IV 49- 50, 52 S/¡oolÍng Piece IV 247 snapping 111 17:1- 98
sdl' sexual difference" 33 4, 37 , 39, 210. Siddall , Curt 1.1 201 as expressive form 111 174
prescnting and rc-presenting IV 22- 41 288; 111 308 - 10; IV 49- 50 Sidney, Philip 111 35 brother to brolher 111 186- 90
.I'ee a/so performing sel!' and laoguage " 33 Sieffert , R. 11 26 data collection 111 175
Sertas Sou/'ce, Par! [[ IV 222, 225 in performance sludies I 232 Siegel, Don I 334 dimensions of III 180
self-abuse 11 276 sexual fantasies " 57 Sifuentes. Roberto IV .182 examples m 179
Se/rAccusaliol1 1 321-2 scxual identity " .14, .17 SIGGRAP H 1168,170, In 176, 179, functions of III 176- 80
scll'-conception I 97 sexual norms I 156 181 , 185.. 6; IV 395 heterosexual African-American men
self-consiousness 11 270; 111 96 sexual objectifieation 111181; IV 253 sign 111 186- 90
sclr-evaluation I 248 sexual polítics I 249 absence 01' 11 244 in context 111 175- 6
self-illlitation I 124 SexlIaI/Tex/ua! Poli/ies 111 307 audience as " 249- :50 in "queen" culture 111 180- 2
sclf-implication 111 98 - 100 sexual violence against wOlllen 11 57 pleasure 01' IJ 238, 244 in the " famil y" 111 182
sdf-interrogation I 149 sexuality" 36,41: IV 98 ·- 102, 258 , 261. reflcction on 11239- 41 media anal ysis 111 175
self-Icgitimation 11 321 263 theatre as 11 2.18 on the playground 111 183- 4
self-objectifieation 11 181 and femini.sm IV 128 sign langu<lge I 350 overview 111 173 - 5
sdl'-observing thought 11 273 and gender" 61, 72- 3 sign systems in poetry readings 1 358-9 study methods 111 175
"Self-Portrait in a Convex Mirror" and psychoanalysis HI .109 sign-veh ieles I 97 use in shade throwing 111 180
IV 198 claboration 01' I 235 signal and siglliticatioll I 354 use of term 111 173
sclf-prescnce I 351 in pornography and performance signifíance I 143 use outside 01' African-Ameriean gay
self-presentatioll I 97- 107.212 11 57..-75 significant fUllction 01' play I 36 cultures 111 184- ·93
sclf-reflection I 351 ; 11 177 representation of 11 34 signification while gay men 111 190- 1
sdf-rdlexive discourse 1 299 truth 01' 11 :13 and signal I 354 white heterosexual men '" 191 - 3
sdf-rdlexivity 11 51; 111 98 - 100 voyeur's lhcory I 236 in performance I 154 with African-American \\lomen
sdr-surveillance I 250 Sgl. Pepper's Lonely !-Ieal'/.\' Club Band silence 111 64 '" 184- 6
selfishness 111 n8 IV 345 and obediem:e " 176 Snydcr, Gary I 338 ; 111 299
Sdiek. Henry IV 365 shade throwing, snapping use in S i/en/ Nig/u 111 226 - 7 So Wei/ /./l1d.\'o Nahe I 304
Sellar, Tom 111 350 111 180 i1icon Graphics I 170. 177 social behaviour I 131
Sdlin. T. IV 271 Shaker dances 1 120 Silverman, David I 145 drama 01' I 114
sClllantic features I 328 Shakespeare, William I 110, 128·- 30; Silvermall, Kaja 11 255 ; IV 255 social ehange IV 269- 88
scmieivilized tri bes I 27- 8 11 38, 79 -80, 82, 84. 87- 8, 95 6. Silverstein, Marc 11 291 teehniques adapted to IV 279- 84
sCllliosis and representation 1I 297- 300 99- 103,116,175,237, .104. 318: Simpson , Loma 111 328 - 9 social conflict I 112, 194; 111 381
sCllliotic chora 111 76, 90 111 260: IV 9 simulacra social constructivists '" 18
sCllIiotie desirc 111 76 Shake.lpeare{{11 Nego/ialion.l' 1 295 and simulations 111 220 social dance 11 :135, 339
sCllliolic doma in 01' Illeaning 111 97 shamc 111 88 logic of 111 208 .. 9 forms 11 344
selllilltic I'ra mesl 147 Sh a nge. Nto7.·a kc IV 76 simulation 11 395; 111 208 9 h istory 01' 11 345
sCllliol ies " 35 Sharpc, R. A. I 376 Singer, M. 19. 57 , 154: 11144: IV 230 social discursivc practices I 294
~c nsatiull ul' body I1 1(,') 71 Shaviro , Stcvcn 11 2X8 single b.:haved behavio ur I 124 Social Oll¡C¡¡SC IV 203

4<;0 15 1

111 10:-; U:
'.11(.' 1:11 ~ 1i:1I 1I ;1 I Il l , I')h:
I V .'!72
:lIId sla gc dr:lIl1:\ 111 11 ') ·-20
apprupríatí\lO nI' IV 274 ()
a~ a g\)Ili~ l k:lI1 ()dcll ll
as l':\ Jlcritntiallllatrix 111 123
basic mollel 111 122
inauguration 111 119
labellíng 01' IV 278
litc ratun: on 111 116
s!lcial cncrgy I 296
socia 1evcnts I 201
socia 1 forc es 111 20
social forma t io ns , dialcctical dynamics
01' 111 388- 90
social frcedoms 11 21 1 -12
social gamcs I 105
social gaming I 196
social identity I 146
social institutions I lO 1
social interaction I 148
social libera tío n 11 213
social life
drama analogy for I 195
gamelike conccptions of I 194
social Illetacommentary 111 124
social nomlS I 157
social organization I 64- 6
social performance I 131
social rcality, dramaturgic a pproach to
1203 - 14
social rclations 11 40
and production 111 375- 6
social roles and vallles 11 40
social scienccs 111 3
error 01' I 76
gcnre mixi'ng in I 189- 202
social setting I 97
social-sex ual reality 11 64
social structure I 64
in performance 111 52
01' meanings I 74
social thcory I 192, 195
social tbought
genre blurring I 189- 202
religllration I 189- 202
s!lcialization and traditional drama
11 38
sociobiology I 191
S(ld ocultllral formations 111 90
spciocllllural fram es I 147
sociocullura 1 phc nomcnll 111 7S
I NI) JI,,", IN I JI \
" íc ilN;\'O 11 ( )111 ic Ir:lITleS I 141:l III VC llli V<.l IlC ~S 11 242 Slack , C arol B. IV ú4
SOCiCH.lCOl1olllic st¡¡tus I 97 IlI lXk lll :!::! I 4 ~tage, c1assical fo rgetting 01' 11 7
socio-his torical bod y 11 166--7 pcrlúrlllancc 11 220 stage a ttendants I 309
sociology 11 3 11 pcrsonage 11 1()4 Swgecoach 11 305
117 radical al tcra tioll I 192 plcasurc 01'11 23648 stagehaod , role of I V 26 - 30
socio-semiotic frames I 147-fl response I 287 sta ging IIJ 156 7
Socrates I 292- 3; 11 184 s ubjectivc reaction s 1 306 Stallybrass, Peter 11 207-8: 111 391 , 397
Sole, Mary 11 209 transported and transforrned I 26J - 90 Stam, Robert 11 292
solemnity and im mo dality I 95 see a/so a lldicnl'c standardiz.ed performance 1 127
Sollers, Philippe 1" 199 Spec/ers (~f' Marx 111 341 Stanislavski I 264, 284, 318: 11 179
Solomons. G u~ 11 192- 3 :.peculu/11 mundi 11 288 Stankicwicz, E. 111 34, 39
Sonncman, E ve IV 191 Specu/um oI/he Olh er 11/0/11011 IV 259 Stanlcy, Kaufmann 11 100
Sonncn field, Ba rry IV 365 spccch Stanna rd , D. E. 111234
Sontag, S. 15: 11 396; I V 188, 199,291 and theat re 11 109 Stanton, Elizabeth Cad y I 238
So phocles 11 51 ,275: 111 4 and writing I 349 -53 star image 1 145
sOllnd congruent 111 66 statements
in poetry I 354 di sc ur,sive consciousness 111 78 as 11lasq ueraders f 92
of signs I 353 - 60 tmnscription of 11 12 consta tive I 92
psychic experience of 1 354 spcech acts 1I 89 descriptive 1 92
resourte for pocts I 360 speech behaviour 111 64 role of 191
South Amerita 111 131 speech cOllllllunieation 1 226 uItera nees as 1 93
South India 1 65 speech education I 247 verifiable 1 91
Sovict Un ion 11 349 speech ,i lllpediment 111 38 SUltes. Bert O. I 15, 108: 11 253
space Speiolbe rg, Stcphen 11 272: IV 365 status ranking 1 194
and matter 111 7 spells I 79 S la)' TUllc" 11 283 4, 288 , 293
and time IJI 9, 90 Spelman , Eli zabeth IV 45 - 7, 51 - 2 Stebbins, E. 1 23<:>
manipulatíon of IV 208 - 10 Spelman , E. V. IV 59 Stein , G c rt rudc 11 182: 111 (), 2()8, 3D),
notion of 11 9 Spe ncer , Herbert 111 3 311,315
spatiality IJI 81- 5 Spencer, Julius S. IV 36 Stei ner. G eo rgc 1 190: 11 327
speakerhwdicnce, as proéluc tive pair spina bifida 11 195 Stelarc 111 210
11 266 Spindlcr, George IJI 110 Stella , F ra nk IV 317- J 11
speak -ins 1 321 --2 Spin ga rn , Joel 11 82 Stephans, Nancy IV 52, S7
Special Interest Grollp for Graphics of spiritual power I 305 Stevens. \Vallacc 111 328,333
the Association for COlllputing Spitzack, e 1 236 Stewart , James I 328: 1V 75
Machinery see SIGGRAPlI Spivak, G . I 233: 111 219, 341 , 377,395; Stimpson , C. R. 111 305
Specific O bjects IV 166 IV 107 stirnulus-response 1250
s pecific symbolic structures IV 214 Spli/ Bri/ches 11 68 Stoddart , Tom 111 217
spectacles LII 253 - 65 spoil-sports I 44, 53 Stone , Allucquerc Rosarllle I 174
spectacllla r represe ntation 11 9 spokcn a rt 111 33 stop-action anirnation and animatronics
spectatorial gaze, destabili zing 11 289, spokcn commllnication 111 36- 7 IV 375
294 spoken language 1 353 stop-action flgure s IV 375-7
spectatorial theory and media culture spo ken lltte ranccs I 346 stop-action puppcts IV 378
11 28 2- 99 Spol in , Viola I 321 Stoppard, Torn I 115
spcctators 11 3~: IV 129--30, 354 spontancous speech 11 109 S/ores 1'. S'/a/e 111 420
active cooperation 11 221 sportsm an I 49 storytelling 11 237; 111 24 -5, 30, 38, 41.
active dramaturgy 11 220 Sprinklc. A nnie 11 97 150
and pcrformati ve modalit y n285-6 Sprmil ime 11 58 Stowc, Harriet Beechcr 11 168
attention attraction 11 228--30 sq uibs and alcoholislll I 80 S /rllngers on a Train 1 327
attention fcatllres 11 228 S rc orenica . Bosn ia 111 215 , 217 18, 223. strategic cxpe ri e ncc, truth oC 111 91 3
attcntion structuring 11 226 - 31 229 si rat egy/t a ~1 ic 111 92
dralllaturgy 11 21 9 35 S rini va~, M. N. I 58 ~I r:lt ()s. Dc mi t rios IV 32()
cn ergi ~s elf I 292 . 306 7 SI: JI;CY. Judil li I V 52 S llall s~ . ( ¡l nri: 1 11148
'-1 5" 1'\'\

SI re h. 1':Ii l :thclh IV 142
territorial Iilllits 1 27
SI rilldhcrl(, A . I 304; 11 XI , 27 5, 310 11;
territorial passagcs I 27 -35
111 ), 202; IV 93, W)
te rritorial sandity I 28
Strille , M. S. 1IlJ6
terror
."'lfII/I,!!, Medicine IV 32H
rcpresentation of 111 211
st rut:l1tra 1 discoll tinllitics, musical
stagcs of IIJ 201 12
performance 1 176 -· 7
terrorism 111 20S
Sllllt:tllralisl11 1191; 11 35
as representation 11121 1
stlllclllre
crea t iOH of IJJ 2 10
alld pradice 111 91
Terry, M . IJ 282 - 4, 297; IV 311
nI' Icdinp. 11 326
tex!
SI lidio of Movcment Registration
111 345
Stllrges, Preston 11 114
Styan, J . L. 11 87
styli l ation I 83 - 4
slIhmntrading 111387
slIbject ivity I 142·-3, 353
slIbordination JI 58
slIflering, spcetacles of UJ 234 .. 52
SlIlllner, C. IV 271
S/III/I./fl1l1 I 160
Sun Ra IV 89
SII/lSel Boulel'i/rd 11 401
Supereondueting Supereollidcr JII 16.
23
slIperfieiality JIJ 140
.\'lIl'e/'/1/{{1/ IV 303
slIpport performers IV 30- 2
SlIpr1'lr/e R ecord.l' \'. necea R ecord.\·
JII 407
Surrealist empiricislll IJ 10
surrogation , performance as 11 98
SlIsllroka I 177
SlI vin , Darko 11 376
Svohoda, Jose!' IV 302
SlI'tll1 Lake II 49
SYl11holic 11 52
sYlllbolic language III 76
sYl11bolic order JI 40; JII 325
sylllbolic proecsses JI 42
symbolism of dance II 346
.'YlIlholized Illatrix IV 36
sylllphonic form I 79
sYllerctism JI 366
systcl11s (Jf represcntation 111 98
-;¡ccman , Ilarold IV 194
Si'wcd, .1.111 53 , (-,2
1",;1ica 1l';( pcricncc, 11'111 h (Ir 111
'1:ilfc1 . Nll rIll all I J I
1;11'1 K illllú\;l1I J. I ' 1(,
I NIJ I!X IND I:X
rait, I\:ta 1 7; 11 1()7
n/e C0l1.1'lal/1 Prince 1 ~,,(,
Taiwa n JI 361 , 399
Tibe Curalor's Exb ibitionism 111 141
talent 11 231
The C ustodian 's Ri p-Off JJI Jj8 40
in musical perfonnam:e 1385
Th e Dead Cfas.\·1 264 - 5
talk a baut tal k 111 64
Tir e Drall/ a ReFieu' I 318: III 253
Tamblyn, Chri,tine IV 396
The Dreol/l Play I 304
Tan , E. II 230
'l/e Elep/wn! l"tal1 I 276, 286
ta ng ible puppets IV 374, 378
Tir e Emergence ol lh!! A lI/eri(,([/1
t8JlgO 11 334
'n iversily 11 31 i\
analysisoflV 129
The Emergence of the Concept of
hi story of JI 338
Personality in a Study of Cultures
Tallgo and Ihe Polilieal EcorlOrny of an d performance relationship 11 84 IIJ 11 O
PassiOI1 IV 128 as effect I 149 'he EI'l'Ipire ol Signs 11 397
tape cOlllpostitions IV 335 context and performance I 145 - 7 'he Eml'ly ."'pace IV 153
T aplin, O . 11 87 definition 1 219 The Engfish Conslílwion JIl 256
Taussig, M. 11 87 fundion 11 221 - 2 lhe Enthusiast 's Infatuation '" 140- 1
Taylor. Diana I 162 in performance studies I 219- 20 Tir e Fly " 6:1
Taylor, Elizabeth 11 99 textana logyl198 The Folklore TeXI: fi 'om Peljomw/lce lO
Taylor, F. W IJI 345 -7, 359 - 60 tex t hermeneutics 111 11 Prinl 1 220
aylorism IU 345, 350, 358 tex t-pcrformance relation IJ 81 The Forced Marriage "1 3 16
Tea Ceremo ny I 286 tex tlperfo rm a nee/ch a ra cterls LI bject ivit y The ForeSI IJJ 299
teachers , ¡¡ttitude to pllpi)S 1 104 rel<Jtionship I 144 n/e Fug ilil'e JI 285
teaehing, women in I 241 tex t Isi gn /si gn ifica ti on I represen ta t ion TI/ e Gel1ealogy oJ M orals 1I 18
tech nical mediatio n IV 326 relationship 1141 The Ger/l/(//l Meology 111 337, 384
technological perfo rmativity 1 175, 180 text/subjcct interaction I 144 The Glce Cl ub IV 220
tcchnological philistinism IV 336 textual cOllllllllnities " 139 The Cood PerSO Il o( Sez!I(fl! 1 304
teehnology textual energies 1 295-·7 Tire Cood, Ihe Bad 11/1(1 Ilre Ug~v I 32S
and puppetry IV 367 Textual Paradigm 11 96 The Gra in o f ¡he Voiee I 14:1
present theories IV 361 textua 1 performance I 141 TIr e Cyp.\y Killgs 11 345
uncanny perfo rm er in space of textual practices , formal analysis of The High Valfey 1 272
IV 381 - 94 I 138 1'171' His lory (Jl Sexlllil)' 111 :132
technoscapes IV 355 ·- 6 textuality 1 351: 11 116- 17 The Holy Farnil)' 111 26]
Tedlock , D. 111 34, 39 " texlualterity" 11 98 TI/ e Idea ot 11 Thealer JI ]24
telemetry IV 372 Texl and Per/ór/l/(/l1ce Quor/ erfr 1 233 'Jire Idea uf Wildemess: From Pre{¡¡slory
Telepl/OllC' Book I 187 Thames Televisio n I 326 IU Ihe Age of Ecology 111 297
telepla y JI 282- 3 TI/e Aeror 's Freedol11 JI 110 Tir e /llusio/'l oJ Ihe Elld 111 229
telepresence I 169, 172 TI/e A/I1ha.l'sador.l' IJ 294 Tite llI1jJossible Theoler IV 153
Telepresencc Research. Inc. I 171 Th e A/I1erh:un Jeremiad 111 120 The II/.\ ec l Ploy IV 302
telc vision n 282- 3, 307; IV 358 TI/!! American Selwlar 1 289 711e IlIlerprela.lion of nreol/1s " 12
and returned gaze 11293- 4 The Al1xious Objecl IV 189 The Jealous Rridegroul11 111 31 (¡
commercials 1120 Tire A udiellce 11 369 Th e King and I 11 163
overview of look ing strllctw'es TIre Baccf/(/e I 276: 11 99 The Lasl (ir 1171' Nuha IV 38
11 284 - 5 The Big Sleep I :178 The Lau"IlI1WlI'er Man IV 142
soaps I 120 Tlle' Birlh 0(' Philo.\'ophy II 17 The Li/e al1.d Times olJose"h Swlil7
spect ator\ gaze IJ 287 TI/ e !3ook o( Ih e ('ourlier 111 257 IV 215
viewer as 'instantaneous grid' Th e Brig 1 :1 19 The U(e 01 Rrian 11 402
JI 291 - 3 T I/e Ca{¡il/('/ o( Dr. Cafigari 1V 29j The lJps o/ Tho//ws IV 238 , 241 - 3
Temple, Sil irley I 325 Tf¡c ('arelal((,;' 111 1m The Living Theat re I 263
te mpor:i1il y 111 R1 .'i TI/(' C(I!''' IV 142 nI!' I,o/lg Re l'OllIl;o,., 11 326
<) 1 3 Ic ns io l1 11 24:\, 211 t1 n/e O /err.\' O,.d/lm l I 2(13; 11 400 '111,' ~/ ahl/¡'¡f(fral(/ 11 400
TCl) I~ l' '' ' J 111 1') TI¡¡ ' ('"1,,,. IJlllpl, ' 111 IX') '11". MII// WIr" h'lII'it ,,, lVo lI/e// JlI .no
'1"'fll t!/J,1i 1 \' 1 1/1' ( '010/'1 '" " ' 1/1"'1/111 111 1XI , 'JI". M II II 11'//" lo,"'" 11'/1/ 1/1 '11 1 1jl)
I.~ I \:'1 '\
 r N 1I 1 \ I N l ll LIl

/'1,.. M'/II 11'//11 ,..,.",,/ / .i/It' r /l' r 1I/lIl/c'C' ¡'!Jc' ,..,."iri/ oj'tllC' U/l/r,~ 1' I 50 01' aliellat 1011 11 1) r/¡ ,'ses 1111 F('II('r/¡(/c!/ 111 .lJ7
1\2R n/(' S' loi/.I' uf' l'oyll/Ol/ iv 1~ \)f'('haracter 11 111 thel il: subjcL:ls 111 76
/'11<' MI/rriage o{ lIel/e (l1/r! l/o" 11 115 [he 'j'Ul1Iillg o/Ihe ShrelV 11 32, 36 - 7 , ol'crudty I 146; 11 3 24.256; 111 2 10 thi nk ing 111 28 - 9
/11C' M"s/er Jlui/r/er 111 JI () 39. 53 01' dr..:allls 11 13 Third Thcatrc 11 224
/11 1' ¡'I>I"yor o( Cas/erhril/ge 1I 115 J'l¡e Te/ep/lOl1e Boo/( IV 158. 383 01' rncdiation 1V 318- 20 Third WorldllI 131
'/hc' tv!c'di/ll/l 1.1' /he /I.(msage 1 187 The T/¡ea/er (Jnd i/.\· Douh/e 11 18 01' research 11 225 Thom , P. IV 332- 3, 3)5, )39, 343
nlt' M irror uf Prodl/c/iO/1 11 367 The Thea/re EvenJ 11 110 or the Ridiculous 1321 Thomas , C larenee IV 68
11/{' N I/III(, ol/he Rose 1V 157 T he T heatre of C ruelt y I 146 o ntological-hysterie IV 328 Thomas, Judith IV 61 - 2
n/c' N III/Ws oj1lis/ory 111 218 The Tllea/rica! E~'el1/ 1 161 orien ta tion I 1 14 Tholllas, Willialll 1. I 98
The N ~w Orleans Group I 321 The Too/h of Crime 11 376 overview of looking structures Thompson, D avid J 236- 7, 324; U 375
n", Oh¡Cc / oI Perlim/1a/'/l'e 11 360 The Tres/IO/d oI Religion I 53 11 284 · 5 Thornpson. E. r. 111 358
The O ntology 01' Pe rrOrmafH.:e 1 115 The Truma!1 SIIo lI' IJ!1d Ed/v rv 385 purforrnative side 11 50 Tholllpson, Graharne F. I 138
/'h(' Orac/e IV 225 - 6 The Vien/'/o Notes 11 112 potential of 11 34 Thompson, J. B. 111 96
'/ 'h(' OreSIl';a I 113 lhe Warrior AI7/ n 399 radical hum a nization of 11 176 Thompson, 1. O . I 144, 324
/ '/¡(' 0 \11/ ¡Jns\Vcrs 1I 114; 111 311 nle We//- Tempel'ed e /aviel' IV 341 resea rch I 294 Thornpson, R obert F arris 11 359, 363 - 4
nI(' Peo{J/e o/ Kau IV 38 The fFi/d DlIck L11 300 rhetorie 01" 11 270 Thoreau , Henry David 111 253: IV 3,
lhe Peoplc Show IV 220 The fVizol'd ofOz 1325 spectator's gaze 11 287 7- 9, 14
lhe Performance Group 1 320-- 1 The WOI11{{/'1 a/ ¡he Keyho/e 11 286 studies I 108 Thorne, Ba rrie IV 52
F/¡e Pc/forming Se/f1 14 71/e WO/l/{{I1 rVarrior 11 189 use ofteml I 114, 161 T/¡orOlv I 363-4
nI(' P/¡e/1ol1lel/% gy otPercep/ion IV 98 The Wooster Group 11 116, 401 Theatre Alfred Jarry 11 225 otho ught
nI(' Playas P(('\"siol1: S/udies il/ /he The Work of Art in the Agc of T!Jea/re and El'eryday Li/e 111 294 atomization in space 111 5- 6
5,('i1'l1l'e 01' ¡Jc/ing 111 347 Meehanical R eproduelion JV 325. Tll ea/re alU/l/s Douh/e IV 153 femini ~t mode of IV 46
nI(' P/ayll'l'ig/II a.l· Thinker 11 321 366, 407 healrewri/ing.\· 111 299 speculative m 3-· 10
n/(: Poor 7'l¡ea /er IV 153 The Worlcl'.I' Erige 1V 221, 226 theatrieal dance 11 347-52 Three Petll1)' Opera I 304
nI(' PUr/rai/ ola Lad)' IV 19 lhe Wri/ing o/ Hislo ry 111 219 theatrical energy I 301 -.] throwing shade, use of terlll 111 178 - 9
nI/' Pos/lI1odcl'l1 Cundilio/1 I 179; 11 251 , TITe Wro/1g Man I 325 theatrical model 11 50 Tienanmen Square 111 281, 283 -5
260, 395; IV 359 Thea/e/' Piece 11 30 theatrical narratives 11 38 Tikopians 111 62
r/¡e Pr(/C/il'es oI Every{/ay Lije 111 91 theatre theatrical performance 11 79- 85 Tillis, Stcve I 4; IV 365
'/'l/e Presenta/ion olSe/jln Everyday an d art IV 323 - 31 theatrieal pleasure 11 237, 246 Tillyard, E. M. 11 249
Uje 113,111, 113; 111257 all d film IV 291 - 305 theatrieal presenee IV 310 - 12 time
The Principies otScien/ijic J'v1anagemen¡ an d seienee 111 3- 10 theatrieal relationship 11 221 and space 111 9, 90
111 359 and speech 11 I()9 theatrical representati on I 298 specific idea or 11 9
The Problell1 01' Speeeh Gcnres 111 94 and transgression 11 243 theatrical signs 11 25 time/s pace/s pecta t or/ perro rm er
Thl' Promised I,{/nd 11 168 as independent and autonomous art and Tlon-theatrieal signs I 159- 60 aggregate I 264
n/e P.I'JChic Lije o/ POll'er I 156 118 theatrieal spaec, manipulation 11 224- 6 Tindemans, Carlos 11 227
n/e Reincarna/ion nI' /he flo/y Orlall as metaphor 1 112-13 theatrieal text , detinition 11 2 19 T ingucl y, Jea n IV IS9
IV 247 as place 11 30 theatrieal trick ery I 30 I Tiv people IV 31 , 33
nI(' Ri::/'IIs oI AJan 111 255 as sign 11 238 theatrieal watehing, new ways 01' To Dance Is Human: A 1hc(}/,y 01
/ 'he Riles 01' Passage I 9 critical function 11 28 11 289- 91 NO!1-l'crha/ CO/1//1/Unicalion 111 127
nI(' RU.l'süm RCI'o/ul.ion 111 261 critisism 111 12 theatricalit y 1294; 11 25 Todorov , T. 111 140,142,144
n/(' Sa/1 Frallcisco Chronicle 11 378 defi niti on 11 48 , SO and its effeet I 157- 63 Togo I1 366, 369, 372
nll' Salanie Verses 11 402 deh umanization of 1I 176 and perfo rm a nce I 160 Toklas, Aliee 111 305
nI(' S(/'eel1s IV 388 9 d em ise of IV 301 dcmystitied IV 206 ·- 17 Tollcr, Ernst 111 260
/ 'he' Seagulllll 296 doeumented I 116 for the O thcr IV 214 Tornas, D. 1 174 - 5
1'he' Secol1d Sex IV 98 energies in I 294 performativity mects I 153 - 67 Tornorrow's R ea lities (exhibition)
n/c SCI'el1 Las/ Word.l· 01' our Saviour enjoyment of 11 233 theori za tion I 159 I 171
(i-om /he ('ros.l· IV 340 csscnce of IV 308 --10 use 01' term I 114, 158 Tong, Winston 11 401
n/c ,',//Oo/is/ I 334-5 failure 01' IV 324 theory of dra ma I 72 Toolc, David 11 199 ·· 200
Tllc' :c;,'i llger o/ Ta/cs 111 48 history of U 5 l/l/'o /'." (JI' C Ol!1es (l1J(/ 1~'nilltJ/ lli(' Tk//(/I'ior toolh and the palm 11 25- 31
I he Sk eplic's C op-Ou t 111 142- 3 life as J 203-14 I 1()3 IOIHlown strategy ( 11 3
n/e ,..,'ocia/ C O/l/ /'C/('/ 11 1(, rn etaph ysieal dirnensions 1 295 th co ry 01' valllc 11 30 Torres. Snsha 1V 15(,
nll' ,. .· oci%g.l' o/ ( 'II//lIrc' 1I 12(, 01' A bsc lI\:c 11 111 1heory/prucl it.:<.: 111 !) } lulal civ il im tioll. stlldy o f! Mí 70

4')(, I 'Í /
 TN 111

I"I ,tI I III.'.lIn· " ) ' ) IV \) \ ) 1 129; 11 25 1

I i /IIf¡ tlfl,I ,\¡"¡/",'/ V,l ca rro, ,Inhll I 32 1 J ·iII{/.I~/ ' ( '/¡oi/'I' 11 ,103
IIi l.lllrlllf l:lflhy "r 111 .! Il :13
I"II II ~ III . 1'11 11 h, SIlIIIIII"II.:r 1 n I)
valtlc 111 )77, ." q villagcs, sllcia 1organi/al iOIl 01' 1mo il ion
1"vsl U Jlll¡!P V• (jcúl"j,d IV J 01 fl/hd.. (/ 111 114 Gonccpt 01' IV 1SO, 323 in 1 65 Ó
T \I\VII ~ Ro h~rt D. 1 15. 203 T ura n, K. 11 102 van der Rohe, Mies 11 396 V illcga~ , J . 1 162- 3
11f1\:C-S IIII.:1 11 re 11 111 fumer , V. 1 9,110, 112 13. 118. 126. van Doesburg, Theo IV 293 Vincentians 111 62 8, 72
Ir;lt.:hllJllnc rg, Alan 111 :185 154, 195 - 6. 283; 11 278 - 9. 371; van Gennep, A. 19, 27, 174: 111 125 8: violence againsl \'lomen 11 58
rr,IC) , Spcnccr 1 32:; m 108, 167, 173, 354: IV 104,272 IV 243, 249 Virilio IV 356
Irallit io ll 1 142 Tll'e/jih Nig/¡f IJ 36, 101 Vanily Fair IV 141 virtual and real IV 381 -2
sucial urganization in villagcs 1 65 ··6 twiee-behavedI123 - 4 , 126, 129,264 va nOostillg. James 1 215 virtual environments 1 169, 173, 177
1radiliollal o ra ma. ano socialization TlVill Peak.\': Fire Walk lVif/¡ M e IV 384 Vansina , Ja n 111 114 virtual puppetry IV 368 , 374. 378
11 38 TwinEarth 1 387- 91 Varma , K. M . 11 246 virtual realit y (VR) I 168 - 88; 11 127
1raditional mime 11 50 Tyler, CaroJe-Anne m IS9 Vaughn, Diane 111 150 as performance 1 170- 5
1rallil iomtlthcatre, ano performance art Vawter, R on 11 157, 164 - 6, 169 cultural research 1 186
11 49 Über den Begrifr de r Geschichte I 305 Vayd a, A ndrew 111 129-30 hang-glider r ide 1 168
1rageoy 11 36 bermarionette JI 179 Venczuelan Accion Colecti va Da nce need to reconceptuali ze I 171 - 2
rebirth 01' IV 3912 U bersfeld , Anne 1 3; 11 83, 236 C ompany 11 351 performance paradigms 1 183
Train . Kelly Am and a IV 269 Uncertainty Principie III 6 venial 01' difference IV 45 perfo nnative traoe-off I 180
1ransactional analysis 1 184 'n cle Tom's Cabin IJ 168 Venturi , Robert 11 396 systems 1 175, 178
Iranscendental metaphysics 1 294 ílcoupling 111 150 verbal annotation I 345 use of term 1 169
Ilansrormation performant.:cs 1 271 - 2, understanding, pleasure 01' 11 241 verbal art virtual virtua l realily (V VR) I 174, 186
274 Under.l'fanding Porfry 11 320 as cOlllmunication 111 35 virtuoso techniques 11 232
Iransformations, use of term 1 269 unending cOl1versation 1 75 as perfonnan.:e 111 32-- 60 Visible Fiuiol1.\· I 144
11 allsgrcssion, plcasure in 11 243 - 6 UNIMA-USA IV 368 , 378 cOlleeption 01' 111 34 visual arts and presence IV 316- 18
II ;llIsgrcssive potential 1 293 United Sta tes r 161 , 163 , 318 ; 11 342, nature 01' 111 34 visual invention 11 242
1rallsitional objects IV 215 345 overview 111 32- 3 voiee 11 183
Irallslation 111 36 performance art IV 193 performance-centered cOl1ception as utterer of él text 11 183
Iransportation United States Holoeaust Memorial 111 34- 5 Volosinov, V. N. 111 79, 93 - 6
uf dance styles 11 346 M useum 111 236 performance constitutivc of domain von Kleist , I-Ieinrieh 11 179- 80; IV 361
01' music 11 346 fundraising materials 111 237 --40 of 111 37 von Neumann I 193
use of term 1 269 ser also Holocaust ve rbal communication 111 94 Voy(/ger IV 403 , 406
1ransportation performances 1 272 Uniled SU/fes v. Ol\lens 111 416 - 17 ve rbal invention 11 242 voyeurislll 11 46; IV 262
Irapeze artist 11 209- 10 universal patriarchy 11 384 verbal representation 11 9
Ira ve!, pleasure of 11 242 - 3 universalism 1 146- 7 Verdi-Fletcher, M a ry 11 192- 5 Wag lITe Dog IV 385
Traven, B. 111 260 universalisti.: articulation I 14S Veljl-emdung 1 281 Wagner-Pa.cifki IV 272
Tn:c 01' K no\Vleoge 111 301 Unmarked 1 119, 153 VeIFemdungse..t/ekt 11 15; 111 307- 8 Waif illg 11 49
Iribal cultures 111 130 U I1termeycr, Louis IV 4 Verlezza, Sabatino 11 194 WaifLllg.for Godof 1 303 - 4; IV 154
/'ri.lfe y¡.opique IV 151' Unf¡fled Dance 111 326 vernacular performativc 11 365 - 8 w<titrcss-custolller rclationship 1 103 --4
fl'lJlI/pe /'oei/ll 43 " Upon Appleton House" IV 9- 10 Verrigo 1 325 Waldo motion-.:apturc dcvice IV 372
Tropicana , Carmelita (Alina Troyano) Upll,(lrdJy Mohile HOl/1e 11 66, 68; ' vextation' 111 64 Walker, Alice 111 189
11 65 - 6 111 308 Veysey. Laurence 11 318 Wall , W. 1196
Trotsky, Lcon 111 260 2, 271 - 2, 275. lJrban Bush W omen 11 196 Viana , Luis 11 )51 Waller, Willaro 1 99
:\44, 351 urbanization 111 130 ViCfims 0./ Duly 1 321 Walton . Kendall IV 335, 401 - 2
Troyano, Alina 11 65 Ur-forml 73 ViClory Garden IV 159 Wandor, Michelene 111 310
T ruil1, Anne IV 168 urine. chlorine-36 in JU 16 video games 1 187 \Var Refugee Boaro 111 239
Trlljillu, Raul 11 150 Uspensky, B. A. 111 :,9 video images IV 35S Ward , Cynthia 1 8: 11 359
Trllnlhull. H. elay 1 29 uttera nees Vioich, A. J. 111 62 Warhol , Andy IV 201. 203
Irlls1. idea 1 01' 111 69 and aels 1 95 - 6 Vietnam Moratoriul11 Day IV 194 Warillg. Marilyn 111 379
11"11111 appropriat.: 1 94 V i~ tnam Solidarity C ampaigll 111 271 Warren , Mary Anne IV 107
alld sci':lIcc 1 250 as statements I 93 Vietnam Veterans Against the W ar W arrcn , R. 11 87
Ncw ( 'ril ica 1 notions 01' 1 250 ci rcum stanees 01' 1 94 c<lmpa ign UI 17CJ W arre n. Robe rt Penn 11 320
01" lac lieal alld sl ral egic c'x pcrience soc ial and psychic dcsniption 01' V ietnam \Var 1 148; 111 270; IV 19.' WlIsse r~lrom , JelTrey 111 282 4
111 '11 3 I 1'i(¡ viewin g, llI ultiplt:: posil iOllill ~ 11 2M5 11'11 11' 1 M lisid 1 .'14 5

I 'i H I ~ I,
11 " 1, , /,,/1,\ IV '1·1 W IIII "" I~';¡d ,
I\Il lry HOIIt IV t,1 .~ W'll k ( ' \"'I ¡W( 111 1/ \ 11'1( , WUIIIIIII W 1\ II K(,
WIlICl g;lll: 111 ILO W hiIIl H II I. I~ ()bl:l'l
I 122 . .12 1 W..UI .l . ' ~'I() '''·1 I\- 1 '1> WII'" ( .JI , 11 111 1I
Wa lllcy, S, 111 JO!) Whilton , D. 11 87 W"II I; I1 . 1'. I I I!;; 11 1 qCl Wl lldtl 1 1 .II \n'~ I ., 11'1
Wallgh, LiIlJ,1 I 355, .\57 8 WIIO 's Aji'llid o/ Virginia WoofP W (lIl,," \\¡(l()~ I. l>ollIlds nI 1 2 n \V lllll ll~ I '1'1 1.11) 11 1') 111 :1:'1
w "y¡¡np. ill ~ I IW 11 99- 100 WOlllall'S Ri~h ls ('Ollvc nl inn I 2. ~K :II 'ls .. 1 11 t.1 1
Wa ylll:. John I 270, ]'27 - R, ]]4 Why Are Wein Viell1wJ/:'IV 14 womcn :lnd pel l'''rlllanL'l' 11 11')

11'(' At't'p 0111' V iClil/ls Ready n 378 Whyle, W . F, I 103 and p!,) lil ical plall'orm I 2:\8 :111 <1 spcl:ch I 14') 'i,\

Wc;\vc r, L 1165,68: IV 150 Wiek ham, P rofessor 11 303 as s\!xlIal subjccls (~r ohjecls 11 57 as a sul>jcc l 11 120

Wcber. Max 11 175; 111 257. 307, 380 Wiegman. Robyn IV 156 biologically sUperil)r n 59 as Icgal 'instrull1Cl1la lity 11 1le)

Wecd , Ginnyl171, ID4 Wiesel, Elie 111 216 eloculionary practices I 244 - 5 dcparl ure J'roll11he norms 01'

Wcene. Seth 11 7 1 Wigner. Eugene m 5 equality \Vith men I 238 pla ywriting JI 121

Wcimann, Robert I 164 Vifd Pofms I 186 erotic entertainment for 11 6 1 diselllpowerlllenl 11 139 41

Wl:inberg, Alvin 111 20 - 2.24 Wi lder, T hornton 11 111; ITI 298 high~r education ro r I 24 1 in law's lext 11 125

Wei llreich , U, 111 36 Wild ing, Faith IV 252 in educalion I 240 - 2 iterability I 345

Weinstock. Jane IV 263 Wiles, T, 1111 0.184; m 311 in clocution I 242 6 performance of 11 121

Weiss, Av raham 111 215 Wilhelm J, Frederick. 11 116 in teaching I 241 strengths of 11 139

Welles , O rson 111 19 Wilke, Hannah 11 58- 60 ll1inority status 01' IV 49·-50 W/'i/ illg (llld Differl!l1l'e IV 199
Wcmbah- Rash id , J, A, R, IV 27 Willard, F mma Hart f 239 misapplication I 244 writtcll poelry 11 t 9
Wenders. Willl I 304 -,5 Willemen , Paul 11 28 7 on stage I 235 written speech 11 1()
West African dance 11 342 Willet, J, IV 308 on the reading platform 1 236- 40 WII/herillg Hl!igh/ s I 325
West African polyrhylhms 111 362- 4 William the Conqueror 11 135 performance art IV 251 - 68
West Afriean vernacular dynamics Williams, Marga ret 11 199 perforll1crs I 234, 247- 53 x-ra ys 111 24
11 359- 80 Will iams, Patricia IV 66 roles of 11 27 Xenopus 111 24
West . e. IV 42- 3, 51- 2, 55 - 8,60, 65 6, Williams. Rayrnond I 16, 108, 110; sexual objeetification of IV 253
92 11 270, 275. 303. 313 - 15, 323, sexual violence agai nst 11 57 Yarbro-Bcja ra no , Yvon ne IV 11 2
West (jermany 11 399 325- 31; 111 54, 268 , 297 scxuality 11 6 1 yeast LII 24
Western avant garde performativity Williams, R. (j, 11 97 sites 01' elocutionary resistance Yeats , W illiam 111 259
Il 359- 80 Williamson, Judith 1331 - 2 1 242- 6
Yelanjian . M, 111 356
Western cu lture 11 7 Williall1son , Nicol e 11 162 subscrvient status 11 60
YCl'usha lm i, Ri na 1 297
Western fcminist theory 11 382- 94 Willis , Susan 11 367- 8 violenee against 11 58
Young, Alan 111 181
Western narrative drama 11 38 Wilshirc, Bruce 11 158; IV 105 women-centered performance hislo ry Young, Iris Marion 11 259: IV 44
Western patriarchy 11 384 Wilson , Godfrey 111 124 1239 Young, James 111 237
Westcrn thcatre 11 20 Wilson , Judith 11 303 Women in PlIhfil: I 238 Yo ung. KarllV 320
Weston , Edward IV 318 Wilson, Monica 111 124 wo men's bodies on stage I 234 Young. Stark 11 8 1
Weston , Kath 111 374 Wilson, Robert I 163; 11 99, 110, wOll1en's work Young, Terellce I 334
Whalen , Philip 1 338 116, 162, 178, 278, 399- 400. 404; performance as I 253 - 6 Yugoslavia 111 216- 17
Wlw/ Did He See IV 306 111 4, 7 ,8, 10, 206, 224 - 5, 298 - 9; performance studies as I 232- 60
Wha/ is Li/era/lIre 111 340 IV 314 Wong, Al 11 40! ambia 111 108- 33
wheelchair dancers 11 192 ') Winant, Howard .IV 52. 57- 60 Woodward , e. Vann 11 340 Zane, Arnie 11 168
Wheeler. Brilla 8, IV 269- 70 Wind light Studios I 185 Wo olf, Virginia 11 249 , 266. 269, 271 , Zarrilli , Phillip U 382, 388; IV 22
Whigham , F. 11 96 Windows 1 187 280; 111 78, 307 Zavella , Patricia JV 67
While, Allon 11 207- 8 Wings o/ /h e Dove IV 18 Wooster Group IV 382 Ziarek. Ewa I 156
white gay men, snapping 111 190- 1 Wirth ..-\,ndrzej IV 355 words as control devices 111 ú4 lilllllJerman . D. H , IV 43 , 51- 2, 54 ~.
White, H. 111 109- 13 wisdom and truth I 56 Wordsworth , William 11 307 60, 65 - 6
whitl: heterosexual men , snapping Wittgenstein, L. I 125, 193; 11 184, 25 1; \\iorking consensus I 103 inn, Maxine Baca IV 44. 46
111 191 - ] 111 6. 80 World Reference Model (WR M) Zissman. Harold 111 240
White House, Washington f),e. Wittig, Monique 11 43 ; IV 103 I 176 issrnan, Sonya 111 240
IIJ 274 - 7 WNET-NY 11 282 World War 1 IV 357 7 i¿ek , Slavoj LJ 213; IV 381
White. Lynn 111 299 Wojnarowkz, D. IV 273 World War 11 I 289. 295 . 305; 11 225. ola 11 255; 111 3

while midclle-elass bias in feminist Wolcolt, James 11 400 269; 111 220, 222. 23R. 349
Zollar. Jawole Willa Jo 11 196

Ihoughl IV 4-l 9 Wolf, Eric n 398 Wo rld Wide Web IV 400. 402
Z ucke rm<ln , Pinchas I 387

W!ti/e ¡J/I W/¡i/l' I 117 Wolfe, Be rnard 1204 Worfd Wi/!7oU! End I I 162
uk ol'sky , LOllis 1 15\ 1(,0

4(,1) It ,l