In Seattle Washington in the bustling area of Pioneer Square tucked under art galleries and boutiques is one of the biggest tourist attractions, the Seattle Underground Tour. This historically educative and elaborate tour entertains the audience as well as giving them an insightful view on the way of life in the founding years of Old Seattle. Considering its neighboring artistic establishments, could this underground tour fall under another classification? The general contemporary definition of performance art (2) is constantly metastasizing into new dimensions. From its traditional identity of the simultaneous exhibition of painting, photography, sculpture and live performance to its new limitless realm of technological media. This underground tour offered many multifaceted dimensions alluding to the perpetually grey definition of the many multifaceted elements of performance art.
As you enter under the heavy antique doors, the conceptual possibilities of the identity of this tour are swung open. As the audience crams themselves in a small room cascading with an elaborately carved wooden bar reminiscent of an old western saloon, they sit with eyes eager and cameras read
y. Then walks in the well educated, humorous and witty tour guide eagerly armed with microphone in hand. But his identity is something to scrutinize. Is he a performer, insightful educator or both? As this tour unfolds with a humorous briefing on the history of the toilette it becomes entertaining much like performance art. On the other hand it is not nearly so far deconstructed or ludicrously abstracted like contemporary conceptual performance art can be that the average viewer would get lost in its content. An example of such is a performance clip (3) from a Japanese Design event in Tokyo.This clip is obviously at the awkward and ridiculous end of the spectrum but still is labeled as performance art not just a performance or odyssey.Further into the tour the audience is escorted on a physical journey into the depths of "Old Seattle" located a few feet below ground level. As the audience descends the creaky stairs case to a damp basement reminiscent of an oubliette with old Seattle photos covering the walls, there is a feeling of total transportation. Isn't that one of the many points of performance art, to shift the viewer’s perception by any means into another point of view? To isolate conceptual ideas of which the performance art piece is aiming to isolate?
Another performance art facet to the tour were hu
ndreds of old, broken, ridden hard and put away wet artifacts lying dormant in the abandoned corridors. These objects resemble nothing less then neglect, so much so that the patina of time on them could resemble artifacts in a mummy’s tomb. These tubs, registers, toilets and pipes all look to be the shells of objects once relied on. Much like an ancient artifact isolated and preserved in a m
useum, or even a “readymade”(1), these objects have a new existence away from the one that was originally intended for them. Generally speaking readymades “ are an everyday object placed out of its original domain into a new point of view and new thought"(1). Time and isolation took these old Seattle artifacts into another level of definition and existence and into something of their own making. These now redefined fossilized objects could very well be “ readymade” works of art in their own right. Is the tub a tub or does it establish another identity like its family member " R. Mutt”?What is the defining moment when a premeditated visual and investigative event becomes performance art or presentation? Much like the corridors of the underground, these questions become to dissolve into the dark even more. The experience is alien, enticing, perplexing and fascinating at the same time. Either way in both scenarios, questions, new discoveries and a lot of content leave the audience with a taste of the banquet but yet no real opportunity to bight into the experience due to the monumentally consuming amounts of information and surrounding stimulus. Is it performance art or an entertaining educational endeavor? In conclusion the tour was memorable, amusing, and enlightening no matter which classification it may lie.
Slide Show of Entire Tour
Works Cited:
1)Theodore Gracyk, Philospphy and the Arts. Examples of the work of Marchel Duchamp, MNstate, www.mnstate.edu, June 18, 2004
2)Shelly Esaak, Art History 101- Performance Art. New York Times Company, www.arthistory.com, 2008
3)Utube, Performance Art, 23rd Design Festa, Tokyo Japan, www.utube.com, May 29, 2006
8 comments:
Your descriptions are lovely – like “small room cascading with an elaborately carved wooden bar” … but I remain confused as to if this tour was advertised as performance art or is calling it performance art simply a device that you were experimenting with in this paper? It may not matter, but if it was ‘just a tour’ that you were using to introduce some of the tenants of performance art to your audience the tour guide does not seem to be your focus here. You give significantly less description of your tour guide (the supposed performer) than you do of the simulated surroundings that you have focused on. The description of the tour reminds me more of experiential art like Kurt Schwitters dada-esque Merzbau installations of sound and physically collaged 3-d space or Cai Gua-Quiang’s masterful flip-flopping of objects within our idea about nostalgia and temporality. Still, you make a strong argument that the tools of art are at heart the tools of culture and the style you approach it with is the beginning of making it an approachable subject to artists and non-artists alike. Thanks, Karen (P.S. I fixed my blog comments moderator so you can see your comments - sorry about that)
Judging by only the slideshow of the tour, it would seem to be more of just a presentation of artifacts. Your description of it, however brings it to life as an experience. You pose an interesting question between what is just a tossed aside object and what does it become in a different place and context. Without the guide, the full presentation and teh performance aspect, what it becomes seems to be secondary. I can see why the performance aspect added a lot to the overall impact of the show and the tour.
Hi Eva,
I think I like the angle you chose to approach your subject with. However, I am still a bit unsure of your stance on performance art and this tourist attraction. You seem to straddle the line and at different points, pose questions to purposely blur the distinctions, however I am curious as to the intended function for the tour. I am guessing, by your descriptions, photos, as well as the link that took me to an explanation of the tour (including a menu for the tour’s Underground Café), that the organization is purposed as a historical attraction focusing on the city’s original infrastructure and anthropological beginnings. I may be off, but I am thinking that most of the tour-goers weren’t necessarily viewing the experience the same way as you were; and it is in that acknowledgement that I find your topic extremely interesting. I think that being clear as to the organization’s intention, and then framing your purposeful take on it, might have made the review a little easier to follow. I kept going back and forth as to what your motives were, and I don’t think that the YouTube video was the best choice for an example of inaccessible performance art. In fact, after watching it, it made me feel like you were lobbying for tours like this one, as a truer form of performance. I like your idea of taking something intended for a certain purpose, and filtering it through your own ____colored glasses. It opens up a world of questions about the role of the institution and our obligations as artists. However, your closing sentence left me feeling like when it was all said and done, it didn’t even matter, as long as you had fun and learned something.
Hi Eva,
Finding a correlation with a historical tour and art was a great way to challenge yourself. I enjoyed your detailed description of transition, “As the audience descends the creaky stairs case to a damp basement reminiscent of an oubliette with old Seattle photos covering the walls, there is a feeling of total transportation.”
You make it quite clear that the “ready made” artifacts makes this tour like an exhibit and the tour guide could be viewed as performance art. You brought up interesting comparisons but I’m not convinced that you feel strongly one way or the other. Since you never really answered your own question of performance or performance art, it left the reader hanging.
You started to make your argument for the “ready made” by stating, “these objects have a new existence away from the one that was originally intended for them” which sounds good, but once you brought up Duchamp’s piece I started to wonder about intent. He chose the piece, signed a different name, and turned it on its side; consequently changing the objects role. How important is intent and concept in defining an object as art? Where you simply making comparisons or did you feel that these objects really were “ready mades”? Does simply moving an object and giving it time make it art? Does it matter where the object is when the viewer sees it? Is the intent to view it as an artifact or is someone trying to claim it as art? I would love to hear your opinion about intent.
Hi Eva—
Yupyupyup, you stumbled a little in your opening graf where you should have made it clear that what we were looking at wasn't performance art, but could have been. I'm talking journalistic-ese here—you "buried your lede." That's what the newspaper editors call it when they have to dig around for a clear definition of your theme.
That aside, what a fun idea for a review. You have a sharp eye for the funny and ironic. You can always make me happy by discussing the artistic possibilities inherent in old bathtubs and toilets (not to mention your inclusion of the delicious phrase "rode hard and put away wet"). As an adjective preceding a noun, though, those words should be separated by hyphens. That's a small question of form there, but finesse in these matters makes an already frisky piece of writing flow more smoothly.
I've learned through years of writing criticism (and having relationships with other human beings) that asking a question isn't always the best way to get at the truth. It's a common device in writing, of course: you ask the question and then you answer it, making the troublesome intellectual exercise of trying to find a "stitch"—a phrase that connects two disparate thoughts—unnecessary. But you should take the high road. Really. You're equipped for it. Make statements, don't use qualifiers, and be as clear as you can.
I thought this review was a great idea. Just present it more clearly next time: "It was just an underground tour, but it was really performance art. Here's why:...." and take it from there. If it doesn't stand up to making a direct statement, it doesn't stand up as a theme.
But I think it does.
See you in June, soon—
Sally Eckhoff
Eva,
I like the approach you made with this paper. I think your links and work cited are good additions to the paper as well as the slide show.
You provided a good challenge in whether or not it was a performance art or not. However, I'm a little confused on what it is you think the show was, performance art or just performance. I think from what I see from the slides it is more a historical presentation of the past. The tubs and toilets don’t really seem to me like ready-mades. I can’t really speak about the tour guide because I don’t know how he sounded but I would say he was probably the closest to performance art then the actual show.
Eva, your idea to look at the Seattle Walking Tour through the lens of performance art was interesting. Your writing is clear and your first paragraph really prepares the reader for what to expect. You may consider reworking the paragraph about the readymade objects with a particular audience in mind. You explain very well what a readymade is, but assume the reader knows Duchamp’s piece titled “R. Mutt.” My other suggestion is to avoid rhetorical questions in favor of making statements. Your question: ‘ Isn’t that one of the many points of performance art, to shift the viewer’s perception…?’ makes your writing seem too casual in comparison to the rest of your article, and presents an important point without your authority as an author. You really pushed yourself to look at a walking tour in a new way and have drawn solid connection to the world of fine art. I enjoyed reading your work and now have regrets about not going on the underground tour myself.
Hey Eva,
Reading your review brought to mind two philosophers I've been coming across. The first was Michael Foucault, whose use of the term "episteme" denoted a particular period of historical achievement in thought that would have to be destroyed in order make way for the succeeding era. Freud of course talked about the subconscious. What bound these two constructs together with your critique of underground tour for me was the fact that in order to access either of these two lost or hidden worlds one would have to engage in a form of archeology. Walking through the underground labyrinth amongst the ruins and debris would naturally bring up strange objects removed from any present context. If the meanings given to them through any attempt of presentation had a surreal element to them as you alluded to it shouldn't come as unexpected, although thats exactly how it sounds like it comes across.
If this seems like a digression it's only because your article, intelligently written and descriptive, made me nostalgic for numerous times I visited Seattle.
I never did take that underground tour. Apparently, it was my loss. Seeing the unknown in the familiar and visa-versa isn't just domain of performance art but all art. I'm making it sound cliche, but its good to have it pointed out every now and them. Thanks for the reminder.
Jason
Post a Comment