,q

It ,.' I HU..I 1\ N ( , l \ R 1 \ N 1 I( I I U \ I

PE R FO RM A NCE A RT

ANO R I TUAL

Bodies in performance

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 hlnTl ' 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

'"''

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
Richards r~a d rrom their poetry, eithcr amongst the spectators, or standing
011 a laddcr leaning against one 01' the walls. Cunningham and others danceJ
I IIrollgh the aisles chased hy the dog \Vho, in the mea ntime, had turneJ maJ . 2
Rallschcnberg projected abstract sliJes (created by coloured gela tine sand
wiched hetween the glass) and c1ips ol' film onto the paintings on the ceiling;
the film dips showed tirst the school cook, and then , as they graJually moved
rmm the ceiling do\Vn the \Valls, the setting sun. Ja y W a tt sat in a comer and
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 l 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'

1' 1 I(

1 ~ 1I 1t

M \ N ( ' 1

\ IU

1\ N

(l

IU 1 1I \ 1

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, l 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< 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"

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
pellrma 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
llllrists and dadaists roeused on the destructive rorces of their performanl:es
ill order to shock the audiences- 'patcr 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'crilure instead of the static text
(as in Le Degr zro de l'crilure, 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 con1,'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

1111

"\I

y. I :"> 1 J 1\ I

1\-Ir l

l ' l ' 1( l ' 11 ((

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
allion. 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 pn'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\::!.

~I

i\

l'~r r

i\ I{ 1

\ N

n n 1T

1I ,\ I

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

:ll' lIoIl S. 01'

" \ ~\

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 l 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, Cu'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 ly , . 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 actm 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)

,.. In () R I\1,\ N c. ,

l' l' H H lt~ M " N ( ' 1, 1\ I( I

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
can be presupposeo for any ofthe e1ements. Concerning the enlrails he spL' lics:
'slaughter house, sacreo killing, slaughter, animal sacrifkc. human sacrilic\!,
prillltive 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 sacrifie, 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 assocations: ' 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 1c 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 lllch rc l~ rc r lt:c lo Olll: (llmillil lll clerl1elll ' 11 11 1.1 111" 111 W.'/,Icrrl C (rist ian

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. l 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

Illl: larllh sYlIIhnli/.cs l'hrisl alld his s;l,;rilice. Thcrel"orc , the Jamb ,
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 mJ)' rcler. Nitseh labels it the ' mythicalleitrnotif of the orgy
lIlysh:ry thcutre (ll1ythical expression 01' the collective need to abreact) the
I ransformation ' .

(' 111111 1(:.

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

\ 1~ t .\ I

1'1 In (11( 1\1 " N ( ' 1, \ H 1

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 l.: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:

11

1(

1 J' \J

1.

( 'I /yl//e: //i/' America olld Ame,.ica like:i me

I\ppl ll:J lo rilllals. it mean s that they will only work when performed by
persono Thus, s/he is pa rt 01' the particular framing which the
12
/1 111;11 IICCOS in ordcr lo succeed:
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
pcrlr/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 " perl rlll; lIIC;cs wc rc very dif'l: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.

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 Ren 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 le 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

IX

-4i

De loulc maniere, un nonc pcrformatif n'a de ralit que s'il est

aul llcnlil i comme ([cte. Hors des circonstances qui le rendent per
/'PI/lJalir, un tel nonc n'est plus rien, N ' importe qui peut crier sur la
place Pllbliq ue: 'le dcrete la m obilisation gnrale.' Ne pOLlvant etre
,1, '1,' ralll\.' tle I'autoril requise, un tel propos n'est plus que paro/e: il
'l' I(:Ju il une clameur inane, ent~lntillage ou dmcnce . Un nonc
111:/ 1i)l'IlIalir qui n 'est pas acte n'existe pas. 11 n'a d 'exis tence que
1 (1I 11111C aclL' d'autoril. OL les actes d 'a utorit sont toujours et d'abo rd
d, 's 1. II\H1cialions profres pa r ceux qui appartient le droit de les
"lIollcc r. 11

01 11 ;1111 hori zcd

I " 1/ .\1

11 It I 11 N 1I l' I

1( j q,

11 ~ 1 \ N C 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 ll'\. 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 hlshcd 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 un ly and Ihe one' ami is conccived 01' 'a s a slrcam
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 ,

or

111

"'t I

,\ NI)

1(

II

" "

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
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 i ahuseJ hel' ()wn hody I'\)r Iw() hours in variolls ways .

or

"11

V I S lJ

RT

N]) l' I ~ R 1" e111 M \ N e l .\ It I

.'. 1( . CI

J{ ~. ,\

N ( . ... :\ lt I

N . ) IU. 11:\ I

Abralllovi 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
l 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 bramovi 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 Abramovi 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
Abramovi 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 Wl~ lhe

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 i'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 ramovi, 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 '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'?'

"1"

\'1:'

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

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
{rlllations, 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 .
A h !. I II " )\

" 111

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 , Abramovi
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 ts 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 Abramovi 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
"Lo

V r ~:I)\ 1

Ar( 1 J\NI' 1' i1 ll1 r.,j(I\I ! \N ' l ' Alt I

ami , in Ihis Wy , 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 l 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, rhys'::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, Grme's Psych. 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:

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

S(),

1'1

\ ' I :-dll\l

1\ le 1

\NI~

" " 11 I "IU\1 \ N e ' 11 "lt 1 1\ N JI It 1 I I J 1\ 1

1' I I IU ! t)lcM"NC 'I'. ,, (( I

cxam plc ofwhal il i:- 'lo hav: ::rtailll y' , \Vhilc l'or ll'll~ olh: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\

: 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

fornll11ce 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 becase in f)a llund Fon Allhry l 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 nchen/ W ien : Editioll
Frc ihol',l.'" 11)71)). p. 50.

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/IlIlel'. Malli/<'sll'. i/llf.i'iil:::e. Vol'/rge (Salzburg/ W kll:
Residcnz- Verlag. 1990), pp. 67- 107 & pp. 1(J] Ir
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
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 nchen : F ink- Ver lag ,
1987).
I (J Das Or;iel/ M y slerien- Thcaler, p. 87.

11 mile Benveniste, Prob/emes ele ln;ui.l'/ique genem/e (Pars: Gallimaru 1966),

Jeanie Forle
p. 273: 'In ally case, a perforrnative stalemcnt can only aehie ve reality w hen it is
conllrmed as an al:tion. Out sidc the Circumstances w hieh rnake il performa tive,
such a statcment is nothng 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, t 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
Limiting one's critical focus to a particular group of performance artists or
doxes ofa bstracti o n in cornmunication ' , in: APA Psycl/ialric R eseorc/ RqiOrts 11,
their performances has always seemed inappropriate, sinec that project would
1955).
13 Marina Abramovi 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
such
a critical distinction , treating feminist performance as a rccognizable
description given by Tisdal+l).
sub-genre within the field. Through the len s 01' post-modern feminist theory,
15 QlIoted in TisdaIl , p. 14.
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.
leminist critiq uc. Their disruption of the dominant systcm constitutes a sub
20 'bid . p. 15.
versive and radical strategy of intervention vis vis patriarchal culture. The
21 Ci tedin Tisdal! , p. 1(J.
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
thc essay,
Biindl! l1 (Frankfllrt am Main , 1980), and He lmuth P1essner, Laughing al/(I Crying.
Arguably all performancc art, particularly in the earlier years, evidenced a
A Sll/dy oIlhe limil.\' o/ Hunwl/ Bl!haviour (Evanston , IL: Northwcstern lJniversity
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.
art,
between a Rcnaissance conception of self ami a postmodern subject
27 Frankfurt am Maiu, 1991.
constructcd by cultural practices. Performance art made understanding (in
28 New York, 1990 ff.
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 lmen , 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-hen N eu::eil (M nchen: Bcck P lIblishing [[ ouse. ]\)RR, 3rd ed.), p. 163.

;omlllc n:ia lislll , ",ssilll il a lil'l1, ;llId Iriv ia lil y. dCl:Ollslructing lhe cOlllmercial art
] 1 Rache! Rosenthal , ' Performance ami the M asoc hist J' radili()!l'. In : Nigh Per(imll

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 l
al/ce (W inter 198 1/2\, p. 24.

80

WOMEN'S PERFO R MANCE ART

Feminism and postmodernism

:"0

' '' 1