Lumping three days together. This always happens at this
point in the term. Our discussion following the third projects went quite well.
I realize as I approach this material that I have a history in my head that may
or may not be accessible to the students. Some of the pieces show up in our
readings – either as brief quotations in the Postmodern book, or as a mention
in a long list of names in things like the Hassan article. So – we needed to
break down the ideas of modernism, avant-garde, and postmodern. I decided to start this conversation by
drawing on some rule established by Allan Kaprow to create Happenings. I split
the class in two and they had ten minutes to come up with an exercise for the
whole class based on these rules. Without a history of Happenings it offered
little more than an example to draw on over then next few days. The main gist
of this exercise is to continue the conversation of the life/art dynamic begun
with the third projects.
A huge part of what I see as a transition from modernism to
postmodernism is the breaking down of lie/art barriers. So – emerging from the
avant-garde things like employing chance begin to challenge the notion that art
is over here in these buildings and life is over here in these. Duchamp became
a main focus of this conversation. I have used his Fountain for years, but
never quite approached it in this way. Picking up on Danto’s point about
Duchamp asking philosophical questions with his art I asked what questions he
seemed to be posing. This was followed with a question about the role of the
spectator, specifically in relation to Fountain. If the artwork is asking
questions what does the spectator do with these? Beyond being implicated in the
process, this role of the spectator picks up on Fried’s point about art
becoming theatrical – or incomplete without an audience. At that point it was
easy to ask the same questions about John Cage’s 4’33”.
So – this set up the conversation about postmodern dance. As
we discussed with the third projects – intention can help to shift focus on how
a piece is read. Someone walks in a circle – the question is what do we have to
do to look at it as a dance piece? Framed as such – either by intention,
building, stage, or merely a suggestion – it is easy to shift focus to see it
that way. One of the big shifts at this point – from Duchamp to Cage to
Cunningham and after – is a negation of skill, technique or training. Granted
Cunningham worked with well-trained dances, but the choreographers he inspired
did not always do this. The main question with this is without skill or
training as the focus what does the spectator look for? It engages a similar
question as Duchamp and Cage’s work. Sally Banes’ comment about how postmodern
dance actually resonates with modernism in other areas suggests looking at
postmodernims as opposed to a singular image.
So we looked at A Cunningham pieces and talked about the
shape and form – seeming like a group of soloists performing simultaneously. We
then talked a bit about the Judson folks and Robert Dunn’s composition classes
based on Cage’s ideas. The notion of creating a piece with a structure that
could accept just about anything as opposed to a sealed work of art that
requires a maximum amount of control. This is a question we are likely to raise
again when we discuss Monty Python and the Holy Grail. As I watch the film I
realize that the structure can absorb just about anything. We finished up by
looking at some pieces by Lucinda Childs, Meredith Monk and Twyla Tharp.
Day Ten was a watching day – Holy Grail. The idea is to
weave all of these pieces together and also talk about Lost in the Funhouse and
Umberto Eco’s article from Postscript to Name of the Rose. I find the rhythm of
these classes interesting in that there are project days, information days,
discussion days, and gathering days. My hope is that each time the students
come to class we don’t fall into exactly the same pattern. But habit is a tough
thing to break.
No comments:
Post a Comment