Discuss how ‘performative turn’ affects the curatorial practice and spectatorship of audiences in contemporary visual art exhibitions.

In history, museums have played an authoritative and specific role/ framework in the process of the concretisation of artworks. Curatorial practices usually place exhibitions within the ‘white cube’ to highlight artworks or objects. This practice blends neutrality, objectivity, eternity, and sacredness and claims to be rational and transcendent while giving the artworks mysterious value and meanings. Nevertheless, since the post-modern period, critical museology has begun to discuss the concept of museums — ‘the space of interaction between the audiences, collections and exhibition space’ (Crespo, 2006, p. 232) and the challenge to museums’ power. As a result, the approach to curatorial practices in museums has become more diverse and inclusive. Also, the art field has been affected. Therefore, contemporary art institutions have been concerned about the performative turn, and the discussions of invisible stretchable boundaries existing in the functions of art museums. The ‘guidelines’ of exhibition space, curatorial practice, or artworks tend to have a transformation, gradually changed into different interactive or interpretation approaches. Therefore, this essay briefly discusses the transformation of art in history. Through two curatorial practice cases, this essay attempts to show how the ‘performative turn’ influences curatorial practice in exhibition spaces and the spectatorship of audiences.

Firstly, in terms of an overview of recent art history, since the 1960s and 1970s, Conceptual Art, Performance Art, Body Art, Fluxus and Happening Art have captured the performative actions and other related elements of daily life as a framework for art. This wave created conversations and fierce collisions over artworks, the artist’s practising body, curatorial practices and the mechanized production of art museums. The performative turn of the contemporary art exhibition can be understood by considering performative art, which originated from the response to machinery in the industrial era. The ‘body’ (of artists or audience members) and interaction (inter-subjectivity) became the focus. From Bourriaud’s (1998) statements on relationship aesthetics, artists, through their artwork and the art process (in the making), attempt to reshape space and the spectatorship of audiences, and reverse the boundaries of public/private and daily/non-daily. Artists’ artworks have challenged the sacredness of exhibition space and provoke museum visitors to recognise the importance of their existence to artworks. Examples include Christoph Schlingensie’s A Church of Fear vs the Alien Within (figure 1), the 2003 Venice Biennale, or a retrospective exhibition The Artist is Present (figure 2) for Marina Abramovic held by MoMA in 2010. Moreover, as Schechner (1988) states, the ‘Fan’ model (Figure 5) of performance spans the domain of traditional drama theory and adopts an inclusive definition of ‘performance’. It means that the performance can include rituals/ceremonies, witchcraft, the outbreak and resolution of crises, daily life, gameplay, the art production process and ritualization (Schechner 1988). From these perspectives and cases, it can be seen that the performative turn in curatorial practices and artworks emphasises ‘process’, ‘time’ and ‘ephemerality’ (Li, 2018; Bishop, 2018). However, there is a critical concern to be resolved regarding how performance art is exhibited for a long period at museums. The common practice is to display the remnants/objects even if people are concerned that the live nature of performance art cannot be represented. However, it is useful precisely because it prompts recognition of the fact that the performance is no longer present and highlights the most critical feature of performance: ephemerality. Therefore, the remnants and the disappearance of performance art are mutually symbiotic (Li, 2018).

Secondly, as mentioned above, this transformation in art form has also influenced curatorial practices, use of exhibition space and spectatorship in art institutions. Hence, ‘curatorial practices’ have become an essential mechanism for understanding and analysing contemporary art, which has attempted to construct a situational, heterogeneous spatial space/form. The performative turn in curatorial practices and art exhibitions ought to be traced back to the exhibition Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form–words — concepts — processes — situation — information (figure 3), curated by Harald Szeemann (1933–2005) at Kunstmuseum Bern in 1968. According to an interview with Jens Hoffmann (MOCAS, 2013), this exhibition was the first to expose the concept in exhibitions and claim a new art spectacle and a new exhibition form from collective exhibitions at the time explicitly (Biryukova, 2017). For Szeemann, this museum was like a lab rather than a place of memories because Kunstmuseum Bern did not have any permanent collections at that time. Therefore, the experimental exhibition transformed into a place of art spectacle and the starting point for exploring the nature of art. A new curatorial and practising connection was created between artworks, artists, creative processes, exhibition space and curators, one which reconstructed the concept of ‘acceptance of contemporary art/absence of curatorial mechanism Moreover, the ‘attitudes’ proposed by Szeemann refer to the representation of the artist’s mental space, which is a process and artistic expression of the artist’s behaviours. It means that the making process of creating artworks is more critical than before. The artist and the artwork construct a symbiotic development relationship in the process of making. Also, the materials of artworks return to a free state. Due to the ‘attitude’ concept, the exhibition space becomes a practising space to visualise the artist’s mental space and the creative process of artworks. For instance, Wrapped Kunsthalle by Bulgarian artists Christo and Jeanne Claude, wrapped up the museum building in polyethene and other materials (figure 3). During the process, artists have created conversations and shaped relations of intersubjectivity between museum space (building), artworks, and themselves.

Furthermore, one of the attempts of critical museology is to stimulate institutions to encourage more experimental process, practices and engagements (Shelton, 2011). In this exhibition project, Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form–words — concepts — processes — situation — information, Szeemann challenges the sacred image of museums, intending to make the exhibition space a medium, and produce the artist’s activities in the making, including tangible presentation through various materials and intangible presentation of artists’ attitudes, which is out of the existing display framework of the exhibition. As Foucault (2002 [1972], p. 54) states, discourse generates the objects of knowledge rather than only revealing and describing. This means that discourse produces forms of tangible and intangible seeing. As a consequence, in this exhibition, its discourse potentially not only generating but also establishing a new art form and exhibition/art discourse to present experimental curatorial practice because exhibitions and their spaces present the process of the performative turn through the transformation of not only the making process of artworks but also the interactions between artists, curatorial practice, and audiences.

Another presentation of the performative turn is live art happening in museum spaces, which can transform performance/behaviours/events with long-term ephemerality that extends the validity of works, and also transform the space-time perception of exhibition spaces. According to the concepts of live art (LADA, 2020; Joshua Sofaer, 2020), live art as a cultural strategy is different from the traditional contexts, which ‘creates space for experimental and experiential attempts’. In live art, the notion of ‘presence’ is essential. Therefore, it can be encountered the actual moment of artworks in the making because either artist would do artworks in front of participants or participants would immerse in a created situation made by artists. An example of this is the exhibition Masingkiay by Taiwanese indigenous director Fangas Nayaw at the Museum of National Taipei University of Education (MoNTUE) in 2017 (figures 6 & 7). The concept of the art production is from a drama to a ‘live art’ exhibition. Hence, Nayaw aimed to create an indigenous gathering place in the museum where performers were hosts inviting audience members (guests) to engage in the social scene of the indigenous peoples (figure 8). The result was a participatory exhibition, as well as an example of the art process in the making. Additionally, Nayaw established the space as a home using a universal symbol rather than traditional indigenous totems or decorations. To break the stereotypes of indigenous cultures and traditions, this live art exhibition allowed participants to experience the diversity of contemporary indigenous cultures/customs and younger generations’ transformation through the exchange and sharing of daily dialogue and affections rather than traditional indigenous dances. According to Bishop (2018), the dance exhibition is regarded as a model form of the new ‘grey zone’, and its performance form has surpassed the ‘black box’ of the theatre and the ‘white cube’ of the museum. The curatorial practise of Masingkiay re-discuss space transformation (function) from the theatre (performance) to the museum (exhibition) and how to create individual experiences for audiences (participants). In the process of the live art exhibition, artists, artworks, and audiences dissolve the time quadrant in the museum space, creating the new spatial sensory experience and open interactive participation. However, there are several questions mentioned in the curatorial process. The curatorial practice ought to concern about various perspectives, such as where the boundaries of the performative turn in this process are, when participants are performers can such a performance be regarded as either theatre or exhibition, how the curatorial perspective of performing art transform the art museum, and how live art drive the museum to form a social field.

Hence, there are several features of the performative turn in a live art exhibition. firstly, , the features of the performative turn not only highlight the transformation of curatorial practices but also liberate the framework of performing art from the theatre. Like the black box of theatres, the white cube of museums is an ideological space to present the ideas of artworks. Nevertheless, the presentation spaces of the live art exhibition, where the features of performing art, visual art and performance art coexist, are no longer an art museum or theatre. Meanwhile, performing art has emerged from the original context and creates extraordinary narratives. As Sheets (2015; cited in Defrantz 2018, p. 90–91) states, the relationships between the audience, artworks and artists which are practised at the museum space subvert the traditional discourse. The exhibition becomes a series of “scenes” (mise-en-scène), which means the curator develops the scenography so audiences can organise the context and perform in a specific time-space with the performers leading (Bal, 2008, p. 74), similar to the engagement process of Masingkiay. Furthermore, audiences must approach the artworks actively in the participatory art exhibition, not to mention the live art exhibition. Therefore, the features of approaches, rhythm, speed and points of view or focalisations of the audiences in the exhibition construct a sequence of meaning-making (Bal, 2008, p. 71). Consequently, when the discourse of the museum’s curatorial practice changes, it further affects the characteristics of the space and the interactions between artworks, artists, audiences and spaces, rather than only concerning objects or artworks.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, different participative approach/ spectatorship implies that the audience can shape the relationship with the artwork in this kind of mechanism. Therefore, the interaction and the autonomy of audiences play a critical role in curatorial practice and the performative turn of exhibitions and artworks. To a certain extent, the audience also breaks away from the traditional linear interpretation of works of art. In psychology, the concept of suggestibility stated by Freud describes how those who appreciate art can only use intuition to feel the implied sensibility in artworks (Ferreira & Carrijo, 2016). However, the emphasis on body-oriented exhibitions, in response to the characteristics of ‘process’, ‘time’ and ‘ephemerality’, shows the transformation of spectatorship of audiences. A participatory art mechanism with the features of the performative turn can transform incidents that were otherwise difficult to control into actionable and recurring events. The nature of the ephemerality of performance can bring people together and produce dialogues. These dialogues are different from physical materials because dialogues are alive and intangible. It means that audiences have transitioned to ‘in’ the art process and have become a part of things. This gradually invisible sense of disappearance echoes the fleeting nature of the performance itself (ephemerality). As Kester (2004) states, art practice based on ‘experience’ is not only the situation and context of the presentation and creation of personal aesthetic experience, but also affects the audience (participant), from passive to active process, the construction of knowledge (in the making), discovery of reflexivity and intersubjectivity through involving body dynamics, and interaction and spectatorship between artists, artworks, audiences and spaces.

Overall, currently, the phenomenon of the performative turn in museums seems to be a trend. It is related to contemporary visual art discourse (institutions, curators, artists and more) because they have been concerned about the possibility of art, the potential of exhibition spaces and the spectatorship of audiences. The transformations of the performative turn have had many impacts on curatorial practices, museum spaces, re-performance of artworks, and how/what spectatorship intersects. The artists/curators and artworks construct an anomalous space and affect the audience’s body, time and space while different ‘live’/performative elements coexist in the same space. In addition to embracing the performative turn, it is also worth thinking about whether this type of art has brought about further changes to the museum under the contemporary context.

Figure 1: Christoph Schlingensie , A Church of Fear vs the Alien Within. Photo from https://venetiancat.blogspot.com/2011/06/54th-venice-international-art-festival.html.

Figure 2: The Artist is Present (figure 4) for Marina Abramovic held by MoMA in 2010. Photo from: https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/marina-abramovic-marina-abramovic-the-artist-is-present-2010/

Figure 3 : Photo of Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form–words — concepts — processes — situation — information (https://contemporaryartdaily.com/2013/09/when-attitudes-become-form-at-kunsthalle-bern-1969/). Photo by Getty Digital collections https://rosettaapp.getty.edu/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE2365335

Figure 4: Christo and Jeanne-Claude, Wrapped Kunsthalle, Bern, Switzerland, 1967–68 Photo by Christo.

https://christojeanneclaude.net/projects/wrapped-kunsthalle?images=construction

Figure 5: Schechner’s Fan model of performance (Schechner 2004: xvi).

Figure 6 & 7: live art exhibition ‘Masingkiay’, by Taiwanese indigenous director Fangas Nayaw in MoNTUE in 2017. Photo from MoNTUE.

Figure 8: The indigenous gathering place and engagement scene of ‘Masingkiay’ in MoNTUE in 2017. Photo by author.

Reference

Bal, M. (2008). ‘Exhibition as film’ in: Macdonald,S. and Basu, P.(ed.) Exhibition Experiments. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 71–93.

Biryukova, M. (2017). ‘Reconsidering the exhibition: When Attitudes Become Form curated by Harald Szeemann: form versus “anti-form” in contemporary art’, Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 9(1), p. 1–12.

Bishop, C. (2018). ‘Black Box, White Cube, Gray Zone: Dance Exhibitions and Audience Attention’, TDR: The Drama Review, 62(2), p. 22–42.

Bourriaud, N. (1998). ‘Relational aesthetics’, in C. Bishop (ed.) Participatory. London：MIT Press, pp. 160–171.

Christo (2020). Wrapped Kunsthalle by Christo and Jeanne-Claude in 1967–68 [Online]. Available at: https://christojeanneclaude.net/projects/wrapped-kunsthalle?images=construction. (Accessed: 1 May 2020)

Crespo, M. (2006). La museología crítica y los estudios de público en los museos de arte contemporáneo: caso del museo de arte contemporáneo de Castilla y León, MUSAC. De Arte, 5, p. 231–243.

Defrantz, T. F. (2019). ‘Dancing the museum’ in D. Davida, M. Pronovost, V. Hudon, and J. Gabriels (ed.) Curating Live Arts: Global Perspectives on Theory and Practice. NY: Berghahn Books, pp. 89–100.

Ferreira, D. D, and Carrijo C. (2016). Transference Management In Freud: An Analysis Of The Relationship Between Transference And Suggestion. Ágora (Rio J.), 19(3), p. 409–424.

Foucault, M. (2002 [1972]). The Archaeology of Knowledge. London：Routledge.

Getty Digital collections. Live in Your Head: When Attitudes Become Form–words — concepts — processes — situation — information [Online]. Available at: https://rosettaapp.getty.edu/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE2365335. (Accessed: 1 May 2020)

Joshua Sofaer (2020). WHAT IS LIVE ART?. Available at: https://www.joshuasofaer.com/2011/06/what-is-live-art/. (Accessed: 1 May 2020)

Kester, G. (2004). Conversation Pieces：Community＋Communication in Modern Art. US: University of California Press.

LADA (2020). What is Live art? Available at : https://www.thisisliveart.co.uk/about-lada/what-is-live-art/.(Accessed: 1 May 2020)

Li, Y.-C. (2018). ‘From Black Box to White Cube: How MoMA Curates, Collects, and Arranges Space for Performance Art’ [In Chinese], Modern Art, 188, p. 6–22.

MoMA. The Artist is Present in 2010 [Online]. Available at: https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/marina-abramovic-marina-abramovic-the-artist-is-present-2010/. (Accessed: 1 May 2020)

MoNTUE (2020). Masingkiay. Available at https://montue.ntue.edu.tw/exhibition-2017-dreamin-montue-2/ (Accessed: 1 May 2020).

Museum of Contemporary Art Detroit — MOCAD (2013). Jens Hoffmann Interview: “When Attitudes Became Form Become Attitudes” [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JwXvOrxK5o. (Accessed: 1 May 2020)

Schechner, R. (2004). Performance theory. London: Taylor & Francis

Shelton, A. (2011). ‘From anthropology to critical museology and viceversa’, Museos y Territorio, 4, p. 30–41.

Venetian Cat (2011). Christoph Schlingensie , A Church of Fear vs the Alien Within. Available at: https://venetiancat.blogspot.com/2011/06/54th-venice-international-art-festival.html. (Accessed: 1 May 2020)