A University of Sussex DPhil thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details Rationales of Documentation in British Live Art Since the 1990s: the Pragmatic, Memorial and Holistic Cecilia Liang May Wee Doctor of Philosophy in Music University of Sussex April 2012 3 UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX CECILIA LIANG MAY WEE RATIONALES OF DOCUMENTATION IN BRITISH LIVE ART SINCE THE 1990S: THE PRAGMATIC, MEMORIAL AND HOLISTIC SUMMARY This thesis investigates rationales behind Live Art documentation, by examining the work of British artists working under the banner of ‘Live Art’ since the 1990s. My aim has been to write an account of Live Art’s history and major themes that incorporates primary research, analysis and criticism of recent research on documentation. Works by Live Artists are not discussed chronologically, but so that they might function as points of departure for discussions about Live Art’s relationship to documentation and its relevance as a contemporary cultural form. The thesis starts with an introduction setting out definitions of Live Art and documentation and contextualising Live Art’s relationship to Performance Art. The rationales for documenting Live Art are grouped into three categories: documentation as pragmatic, documentation as memorial and documentation as holistic. The main text is divided into three parts, each Part discusses issues relating to one of the above categories. Part 1 addresses practical reasons why artists working under the banner of Live Art document their work. The section includes an exploration of the infrastructure for the development of Live Art in the UK as well as an analysis of the market for Live Art and its documentation. Part 2 interrogates perspectives from the discipline of performance studies on the relationship between live action and documentation, exploring how these issues have been interpreted in Live Art’s history. In particular, this section will assess how writers and artists have approached discussion of Live Art in oral and written form. Part 3 proposes models of rethinking documentation based on works by British Live Artists that develop documentation in tandem to live action and enjoy a privileged relationship to technology. 4 Table of Contents List of Figures 5 Introduction 6 Acknowledgments 7 Text Formats, Referencing Styles And Conventions 8 Guide Through The Text 9 Methodology 11 Key Writers 20 Pre-history 29 Marina Abramović 29 Rudolf Schwarzkogler 32 Gina Pane 39 Part One: The Pragmatic 43 Defining Live Art Characteristics 44 Live Art – A Proper Name 51 Conditions For Live Art 53 Defining Documentation 54 Documentation’s Special Relationship to Live Art 57 Those Who Are Responsible For Documentation 63 Irresponsible Documentation - Pragmatic Reasons For Not Documenting 66 Live Art Documentation as Professionalisation 71 Archives and Institutionalisation of Live Art 76 Economics of Live Art 85 Part 2: The Memorial 94 Writing Live Art 94 Gossip and Myth 100 On The Live 105 Truth and Authority 111 Trust and the Spectre of Documentation 116 Objects and Commodities of Live Art 121 Part 3: The Holistic 127 Recycling the Performance 127 Documentation as by-product 132 Relationality and Ontogenetics 135 Modular Live Art Practice 141 Correspondence to Music 144 Experiencing Documentation 149 Space for Imagining 154 Conclusion 159 Bibliography 165 Appendix One 187 Appendix Two 188 5 List of Figures Figure 1 Marina Abramović. Rhythm 0. Galleria Studio Morra, Naples, 1974. Marina Abramović. ....................................................................................................................29 Figure 2 Rudolf Schwarzkogler. 3rd Action. Private residence, Vienna, Austria, 1965. Ludwig Hoffenreich........................................................................................................33 Figure 3 Dick Higgins. Thousand Symphonies. 1963. ..................................................37 Figure 4 Gina Pane. Azione Sentimentale. Gallery Diagramma, Milan, 1973. Françoise Masson..........................................................................................................................39 Figure 5 Joshua Sofaer. Still from What is Live Art? Oxford Street, London, 2002. Joshua Sofaer. ..............................................................................................................44 Figure 6 Architecture of Interaction. Basic Model. 2005. Creative Commons Licence .48 Figure 7 Bobby Baker. Table Occasions. Promotional flyer, 1997. Daily Life Ltd.........58 Figure 8 Anne Seagrave. Jamais Vu. National Review of Live Art, Tramway, Glasgow, 2007. The Author...........................................................................................................68 Figure 9 Brian Catling. Rational Rec, Wiltons Music Hall, London, 2008. Richard Cobelli. ..........................................................................................................................71 Figure 10 FrenchMottershead. People Series. Collage of documentation, 2003- ongoing. FrenchMottershead ........................................................................................74 Figure 11 Vacuum Cleaner. Prayers to Products. House of Fraser, Oxford Street, London, 2003. Immo Klink.............................................................................................79 Figure 12 Mark McGowan. A Canterbury Tale. Waterloo, London, 2005. Stefan Rousseau/PA. .............................................................................................................103 Figure 13 William Hunt. Call John the Boatman. Fresh! Fest, South Hill Park, Bracknell, 2007. William Hunt ......................................................................................................134 Figure 14 Phil Warnell. Host. MACRO, Rome, Italy, 2004. Stephanie Nava ..............138 Figure 15 Anna Best. Vauxhall Pleasure. Vauxhall Cross, London, 2004. Anna Best & Paul Whitty. .................................................................................................................144 6 Introduction The fundamental purpose of this thesis is to explore reasons why British Live Artists have documented their work since the 1990s and what meaning this documentation holds for artists, producers, audience and researchers who engage with the reproduction and reception of Live Art practice. Presenting an account of the diversity of practice in British Live Art working from the 1990s to the present day, this thesis considers the history and theorisation of Live Art in equal measure, taking a set of themes commonly found in discourse on contemporary Live Art practice and examining their assumptions about documentation. As a contemporary art practice centred around artists, the dissemination of Live Art is concentrated in individuals, being distributed through oral transmission as much as it is conveyed through texts and objects. In this context, knowledge about Live Art can be viewed as a key motivating factor in the production of documentation, which has a direct impact on curators and programmers who work to present Live Art. Starting off with a definition of Live Art, followed by a definition of documentation, I will identify what is unique about documentation in the context of research and practice of Live Art. Through this, I wish to argue that documentation is embedded and integral to the practice of Live Art in the UK. The first part of the thesis looks at practical ways in which Live Art is incorporating documentation and the reasons for Live Artists’ increased interest in documentation. The second part looks at the idea of documentation as memory, in particular focussing on how documentation is ‘written’ into Live Art history, imbuing documents with authority and authenticity. In the final part of the thesis I consider the processes by which documentation is embedded, both purposefully and involuntarily, into the action and ideology of Live Art, with particular attention to the role of technology in performance and Live Art practice. By examining that which is considered the counterpart of the ‘live’ of Live Art, namely, its documentation, I wish to show that beyond its practical uses, documentation is a crucial part of Live Art’s identity. I propose that Live Artists today are incorporating into their practice the changes in sensibility and relationships to technology precipitated by digital culture, with documentation emerging in tandem with the performative, ‘live’ action as a result. Like all artforms and art-making practices, Live Art is a product of its ideological and technological context. Live Art’s specific historical moment has marked it in terms of the uses and possibilities of new media today, the ubiquity of consumerist culture and a post-avant-garde relationship to institutionalised narratives of art. 7 Live Art, existing somewhere between the fringes and an established order of performance, has often described itself as valuing the encounter between artist and audience, that is frequently