Stelarc After Van Gogh.

Body in Excess and A Happy New Ear

Horea AVRAM

The title of this essay is not a self-evident statement. It does not simply indicate that,
chronologically, Australian artist Stelarc lives one hundred years after the Dutch painter Vincent
Van Gogh. It rather suggests the goal of this essay: a rereading of Stelarc s o k and its extreme
forms of performance from the perspective offered by modernist debates on senses and
corporeality, taking Van Gogh if not as a concrete reference point in discussion, then as an
emblem of modernity and of the a tist s st uggle with that very modernity. Nevertheless,
despite the lack of any direct link between the Dutch painter and the Australian performer,
certain (anatomical) detail can be seen as a connecting point between the two. It is well known
the fact that that, in a difficult psychological moment, Van Gogh severed his ear, then send it
over in a package to a brothel frequented by both him and his friend Paul Gauguin. It was
rather an unconscious gesture, but which involuntarily emphasized the age-old idea of the
superiority of sight over other senses.1 In contrast and somewhat polemically to Va Gogh s
gesture, Stelarc opted for extending his body by implanting a third ear in his forearm, thus
undermining the conviction about the superiority of sight, but also complicating modernist
arguments about body fragmentation and the segregation and hierarchy of senses. It is not
without significance that in a private discussion with Stelarc, he revealed that, for him, there is
no link whatsoever with Van Gogh. He was interested to extend not to abbreviate his body and
this was done not under momentary impulse and crisis, but after careful assessments, lengthy
medical preparations and significant financial spending.

1
It is useful to remind at this point that the privilege sight has had in the majority of theories about body and
representation is a very old practice, although in the visual arts it became the norm at the height of late
modernism in the post-World-War-II years. This dominant view was expressed by art critic Clement Greenberg in
the follo i g te s: the pai ti g a d statue a e a hi es to p odu e the e otio of plasti sight. The pu el
plastic or abstract qualities of the work of art are the only ones that ou t. Clement Greenberg, To a ds a
Ne e Lao oo , The Collected Essays and Criticism; I Perceptions and Judgments, 1939-1944, ed. Joh O B ia ,
Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1993, p. 34. For a comprehensive discussion on the subject see: Caroline A.
Jones, Eyesight Alone: Clement Greenberg's Modernism and the Bureaucratization of the Senses. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2005.

1
 By undermining and problematizing the hierarchy of the senses (and of the body
organs), Stelarc operates not only their relativization, but also their instrumentalization, against
any attempt to understand them as centralized and undifferentiated. O e of “tela s eliefs is
that, in the contemporary technological and scientific context, we have to do with organs
without bodies, Third Hand / Third Face an idea that underlines the atomization, if not the
alienation of the organs from a unitary body. This is evident in most of his works. For example,
Third Hand (1980) is a series of performances in which Stelarc wears a robotic arm attached to
his right hand which is worked by picking up the electric signals of the muscle movements from
the legs and arms. The thi d ha d has become one of the best-known and longest-used
performance objects for the artist and has contributed to cyborg discourses on the body
especially during the eighties and nineties. Another significant work from the point of view in
discussion here is Ping Body (1995 - ongoing) where Stelarc applies the same idea of the
prosthesis (of a third ha d a d of the i depe de t o t ol o e the pe fo e s od . Using a
computer-interfaced muscle-stimulation system, “tela s od is linked to the Internet through
a website allowing the audience to remotely access, view and actuate his movements. The
pe fo e s od o es not to the promptings of its internal nervous system or of another
body in another place, but rather to Internet activity itself, more exactly to the quality and
quantity of data flow. In this sense, Ping Body performance series proposes an inversion of the
relationship between body and interface: instead of collective bodies determining the
operation of the Internet, collective Internet activity moves the body. The Internet becomes not
merely a mode of information transmission, but also a transducer, effecting physical action.
( Pi g Bod ). Amplified Body (1993-2000) is a performative work based on the measurements
and then the visual and acoustic amplification of the body processes, more exactly, of the
bioelectric activity of the brain (brainwaves - EEG), muscles (EMG), pulse (plethysmogram) and
bloodflow (Doppler flow meter). By tensing and releasing his muscles, Stelarc controls the
devices connected to his body: an industrial robotic arm, video cameras and the video
projection containing (distorted) images of the acting body.
But the project that made Stelarc even more famous is Ear on Arm (begun 2006). The
project consists of implementing a third ear into the forearm. This time, the prosthesis is not a

2
technological object, but a manufactured organ made out of natural ingredients (cartilage and
skin tissue). This makes it a plausible organ, at least at the visual level. Another important
aspect is that this organ is not detachable like the prostheses used previously, but, once
inserted under the skin, it remains permanent (this is a dramatic aspect given the high risk of
cancer the additional ea p esupposes . The ost diffi ult pa t of this ope atio , the artist has
mentioned in the same private discussion, was not the construction of the ear itself, but rather
to find the surgeons willing to do the implant since this case is more than a simple reparatory
intervention or aesthetic surgery. This is not about adjusting or modifying an already existing
organ, but to create a new one – a controversial issue on ethical grounds, not only on medical
ones. Now that the insertion is complete, periodic actions of maintenance and repair are
eeded to i p o e the o ga s aspe t a d the s iosis created between the body and the
e o ga . But, the most important action related to this project, and which will actually
fulfill it, is a tist s intention to have a Wi-Fi enabled microphone introduced into the ear on
the forearm. Thus, anyone who will enter a dedicated website will be able to listen to what the
ea hea s, he e e one is and whatever Stelarc would do.2
This radical intervention is a way to get beyond the given organs and the senses taken
sepa atel . It is, i deed, a total app oa h of the performative body, but not in the sense of a
Gesamtkörper – if I may paraphrase the famous Gesamtkunstwerk – that is, a total od see
as a whole and with a centralized coordination. On the contrary, Stelarc extends the senses and
the actions of the body by delegating them to factors and elements external to the body (or at
least external to the mechanisms that normally makes them functioning), such as the

2
The idea of hooking up the body to the Internet was experimented by Steve Mann (credited with creating the
Wearable Computing), in his fi st life asti g. I 99 , Ma sta ted to wear a webcam for almost two years; the
camera transmitted images from his almost every waking minute to the viewers on the web who could send him
live feeds and messages in real ti e. “ee “te e Ma , A histo i al a ou t of the Wea Co p a d Wea Ca
i e tio s de eloped fo appli atio s i Pe so al I agi g , Pu lished i IEEE Proceedings of the first International
Symposium on Wearable Computers [ISWC], October 13-14, 1997, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 66-73. Another
related case is that of Neil Harbisson, a performing artist and cyborg activist. He became famous for being the first
person in the world having an antenna implanted in his skull in 2004. The antenna captures pieces of information
and reports them to Harbisson as vibrations in his skull. Information includes measurements of electromagnetic
radiation, phone calls, music, as well as video or images which are translated into sound. The sensor included in
the antenna is able to transpose colour frequencies into sound frequencies, therefore the artist being able to hear
images and represent sounds (Harbissson was born congenitally achromatic, i.e., colour-blind). See Neil Harbisson,
I liste to olo TEDGlo al, [O li e] Jul , A aila le at:
http://www.ted.com/talks/neil_harbisson_i_listen_to_color.html (accessed January 2016).

3
movement of the mechanical hand according to the impulses of the other muscles, or the
control of the body according to the data traffic on the internet. The efo e, “tela s a tio s do
not relativize but effectively extend and enrich corporeality. The observation made by Stelarc
with reference to the use of the third hand in his performance is actually symptomatic for all his
performances: The Third Hand has come to stand for a body of work that explored intimate
interface of technology and prosthetic augmentation not as a replacement but rather as an
addition to the body. A prosthesis not as a sign of lack, but rather a symptom of excess.
(Projects 1980-2002).
Indeed, at Stelarc, we have to do with what I call the body in excess. This is the body of
the su plus, the od that goes o e its o al li its. Nevertheless, going over the limits is
not a simple extension (we should not forget that Descartes explained the body as an extended
thing, res extensa), but it represents a corporeal paradigm that exceeds its own condition, one
that can be described, if it is to keep the same Cartesian vocabulary, as res excessus. We can
identify a spectacular component of this res excessus, of the body in excess. This means, the
anatomy acquires dramatic dimensions, in both senses of the term – theatrical and shocking.
Thus, at Stelarc, anatomy is defined on parameters that refuse any form of normative and
objectified corporality. Performance theorist Maaike Bleeke s o se atio is ele a t i this
sense:
Many artists use (or have used) performance, theatricality, staging, or re-enactment as
means to challenge conceptions of the body as a mere object. They argue for a new
understanding of the body as an agent actively involved in world making, and in the
production of thought and knowledge. Sometimes, their work presents an explicit
critique of the history of the anatomical body (...). (15)

This is exactly what Stelarc proposes in his performances: a radical critique of the pure
biological corporeality, of the body seen as a mere object, as a simple given structure (at least
in anatomical terms). For him anatomy becomes a discourse and the body becomes a spectacle.
Of course, the equation body-spectacle points implicitly to the idea of theatricality – and here I
use the terms theatre and theatricality in a larger sense, beyond the scope of the original term

4
theatron, a pla e fo ie i g a d seei g. (Allain and Harvie 208)3 But if we agree that, seen
fo this pe spe ti e, “tela s o ks i pl e uall a a ato i a d theat i al di e sio , the
question that naturally arises is to what extent we can speak in this case about the
manifestation of an anatomical theatre ?
A first thought would be that we can place Stelarc s attitude concerning anatomy and
o po ealit alo g the li es i augu ated the ‘e aissa e s a atomical theatre, given his
preoccupation for exploring human anatomy or, more precisely (in the case of anatomical
theatre), for dissection understood as a spectacle. But while the visual regime established by
the disse tio p o ess helped to esta lish the od as a sta le a d o solidated e tit apa le
of providing a singular perspective onto the world, as theorist Susan Leigh Foster (169) has
demonstrated, Stelarc overturns this perspective showing that the world seen in anatomical
terms is not an absolute and definitive construct, but an entity opened to extensions and
interpretations. That ea s, a spe ta ula ized od .4 Moreover, if in the anatomical theatre
the body is diminished (in the sense of being cut, alte ed a d de o st u ted , i “tela s
performances the spectacle presupposes the augmentation of the body, its extension in both
its conceptual and physical/functional dimensions. Therefore, perhaps a better formula to be
applied to “tela s o k is that of the theatricalized anatomy , an expression that turns over
the equation to put at the forefront the body, more precisely its anatomy, not as an object of
the spectacle, but as a provider (or generator) of the spectacle. The epistemological dimension
of the anatomical theatre is sent to the background, only to emphasize the aesthetic aspects of

3
I am totally aware of the fact that the term theatricality covers a wide range of senses, and that its connotation
depends on the cultural or strictly theoretical context in which it is employed. Concerning the numerous forms and
ways the term theatricality is currently being used Thomas Postle ait a d T a C. Da is ite that it a e
defined exclusively as a specific type of performance style or inclusively as all the semiotic codes of theatrical
ep ese tatio . „Theat i alit : A I t odu tio , i Theatricality: Theatre and Performance Theory, eds. Tracy C.
Davis and Thomas Postlewait, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 1). However, I employ the term theatricality in
the present essay in the sense the term acquires at the confluence with the notion of performativity and the
practice of pe fo a e. Postle ait a d Da is o se atio s a e ele a t i this se se: if ... theat i alit is
distinct from yet related to mimesis, role playing, theatrum mundi, the carnivalesque, metatheatre, spectacle,
ritual behavior, and social ceremonies, performativity has likewise been confused and sometimes conflated with
a a d all of this te i olog . Tho as Postle ait a d T a C. Da is, „Theat i alit : A I t odu tio , p. .
4
With this statement I also suggest the idea of spectacle as it was formulated by Guy Debord, i.e., a way to turn
reality into its image. Guy Debord, La société du spectacle (1967). Third edition, Paris, Les Éditions Gallimard, 1992.

5
the body, the allegorical anatomy.5 In his works such as Third Hand, Ping Body and Amplified
Body the perpetual oscillation between the concrete physical level and the metaphorical level
of the spectacularized corporeality supports precisely this idea of the theatricalized anatomy.
Of course, there are numerous examples of projects in the area of performing arts
which propose a spectacularized corporeality via the use of technology, although the goal of
these works is not so much the theatricalization of the anatomy itself, but of the body as
presence, as an outward bodily presence. Among such endeavors – that stand out precisely for
their technologically innovative and artistically distinctive qualities – we should mention: the
Wooste G oup s p odu tio s that ai to expanding the conventions of theater and
performance by radically reworking canonical plays and at the same time pioneering the use of
video and other multimedia tools in their productions: Brace Up! (1991, 2003), Vieux Carré
(2011), Hamlet (2007, 2012), etc. A othe sig ifi a t e a ple is Ad ie M / Clai e B s
productions based on merging video mapping and digital graphics with the moving bodies on
the stage to create illusionist works combining dance, poetry, fiction, music and technical
achievement: Convergence 1.0 (2005), Cinématique (2010), Pixel (2014), Le ouve e t de l’air
(2015), etc. In the same vein, media artist, director and composer Klaus Obermaier applies
advanced technologies to stage performances (music, dance). His cross-medial projects are
based on the interaction between music, body and moving image to create three-dimensional
spaces at the border between real and virtual that effectively enhances our perception of the
objects and the environment: D.A.V.E. (1999), Vivisector (2002), Apparition (2004), Le Sacre du
Printemps (2006 - ongoing).
What akes “tela s p oje ts diffe e t f o these e dea ou s ai ed at
spectacularizing the body is his different approach to the problem of the corporeal, something
that I would call anatomy as fiction. Since what is the implanted ear if not an invented anatomy,
a product of the creative imagination of the artist? “tela effe ti el i e ted the thi d ea
and produced it with medical means). Therefore, what is important to note is that this invented

5
Although as Karen Ingha e plai s, allego as built into the very fabric of the anatomy theatre, which was
o igi all a spa e desig ed as a lo us ot o l of episte ologi al e positio ut also of etapho i al u foldi g.
Ka e I gha , A t a d the theat e of i d a d od : how contemporary arts practice is re-framing the anatomo-
li i al theat e , Journal of Anatomy, 216/2010, p. 252.

6
or fictional ear does not remain in the realm of the imaginary or that of the representation. It is
a real occurrence, o , to o o Mieke Bal s e p essio , although applied to a diffe e t o te t,
it is a fi tio of ealit (126). That means, it is a fiction made equally with real, material means
o ga i , o e p e isel a d ith heto i al i st u e ts a d he e ‘ola d Ba thes e p essio
effe t of ealit e o es ele a t gi e the i p essio of ealit the implanted ear provides).
It is extremely important to e phasize that i all of “tela s pe fo a es, technology
plays a crucial role. The project Ear on Arm is no exception. Implanting a microphone to the
fake ear and then hooking it up to the internet makes it work as a tympanum that will capture
sounds available to everyone in real time. So, can we see this as a concrete illustration of
Ma shall M Luha s idea that edia a e o e the e te sio of an. ? In a way, linking the
body and technology in a direct and permanent fashion makes the body the subject of data
traffic and regular technical updates. This means, an extension of the senses in all their aspects.
But the question is – a d he e I oi e “la oj Žižek s interrogations on the same subject (290-
295) – to what degree these extensions would lead to a corporeal alienation, or, to employ an
overused term, would lead to disembodiment? If it is to accept Žižek s positio , the e is o
escape from this... The direct contact with reality becomes less and less possible, as long as we
cannot escape from the sensorial changes inflicted to us by (the use of) media. Thus, the best
solutio is, a o di g to Žižek, to i o po ate, a th opo o phize a d i te alize the edia
object. This is exactly what Stelarc does when trying to transform an ear in the forearm into a
media interface. Thus, the credo that technology defines the human becomes justified:
te h olog is ot the a to of the od , ut a lea pa t of it. A d “tela s o ks are a clear
and, indeed, a spectacular proof in this sense.

7
Works Cited
1. Allain, Paul and Jen Harvie. The Routledge Companion to Theatre and Performance, New
York: Routledge, 2006.

2. Bal, Mieke. Travelling Concepts in the Humanities. A Rough Guide, Toronto, Buffalo, London:
University of Toronto Press, 2002.

3. Barthes, Roland. L Effet de éel , Communications, no. 11/1968.

4. Bleeker, Maaike. I t odu tio , Anatomy Live: Performance and the Operating Theatre,
Amsterdam University Press, 2008.

5. Davis, Tracy C. and Thomas Postlewait (eds.). Theatricality: Theatre and Performance Theory,
Cambridge University Press, 2003.

6. Foster, Susan Leigh. Whe e A e You No ? : Lo ati g the Bod i Co te po a

Pe fo a e, i Anatomy Live: Performance and the Operating Theatre, ed. Maaike Bleeker
(Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2008).

7. Greenberg, Clement. To a ds a Ne e Lao oo , The Collected Essays and Criticism; I

Perceptions and Judgments, 1939-1944, ed. Joh O B ia , Chi ago, U i e sit of Chi ago P ess,
1993.

8. Ingham, Karen. A t a d the theat e of i d a d od : ho o te po a a ts p a ti e is e-

framing the anatomo- li i al theat e , Journal of Anatomy, 216/2010.

9. Mann, Steve. A histo i al a ou t of the Wea Co p a d Wea Ca i e tio s de eloped

fo appli atio s i Pe so al I agi g , Pu lished i IEEE Proceedings of the first International
Symposium on Wearable Computers [ISWC], October 13-14, 1997, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
pp. 66-73.

10. McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Cambridge, Mass and
London, England: The MIT Press, (1964) 1994.

11. Stelarc. Thi d Ha d / Thi d Fa e: Alte ate A hite tu es , http://stelarc.org/_.swf (accesed

January 2016).

12. –––. Pi g Bod , V - Institute for the Unstable Media, Archive.

http://v2.nl/archive/works/ping-body (accesed January 2016).

13. –––. Projects 1980-2002: Third Hand, Histo , http://stelarc.org/?catID=20265 (accessed

January 2016).

14. Žižek, Slavoj. F o i tual ealit to the i tualizatio of ealit , Electronic culture:
technology and visual representation. New York, Aperture, 1996.

8
Abstract

M pape e a i es Aust alia a tist “tela s o k a d its e t e e fo s of

technological performance from the perspective offered by modernist debates on senses and
o po ealit . “tela s ost oto ious p oje t is the e te sio of his od i pla ti g a thi d
ear in his forearm. My argument is that this gesture complicates the modernist debates about
body fragmentation and the segregation and hierarchy of senses. Thus, Stelarc operates a
radical criticism of the pure biological corporeality seen as simple object, as a given anatomical
structure. For Stelarc, I claim, anatomy becomes a discourse and the body becomes spectacle.
Ca e speak i this ase a out a ato as fi tio ? o athe a fi tio of ealit as Mieke Bal
puts it . Ca e see “tela s gestu e as ulti ate i ple e tatio of Ma shal M Luha s adage
a out edia as e te sio s of a ?
My contention is that Stelarc proposes a body in excess that reevaluates the idea of the
body as res extensa p o ided Des a tes to p opose a od defi ed as a so t of res
excessus . Pushi g the od to its e essi e di e sio s, “tela s interventions do not
undermine corporeality, but, on the contrary, enriches and extends its potentiality.
Maki g a lose a al sis of “tela s pe a e t pe fo a e Ear on Arm), my paper
discusses the aesthetic mechanisms of the body in excess seen as a spectacle where anatomy
becomes a live/mediated technological event.

Keywords
Stelarc, body, technology, media performance, anatomy as fiction