Is live art dead art?

[imomus]

My Architectural Association lecture last week started with something that might have sounded like a joke, but was actually meant fairly earnestly: "When I lived in London," I told the audience, "I became such an acute social critic that in the end all I could stand was the AA and the ICA!" (I suppose we should add The Photographers' Gallery after Tuesday's sentimental outburst.) You get the general idea; if I love anything about London, in retrospect -- having left the city after spending 13 years of my life there -- I love its radical cultural institutions.

Of course, there's a paradox right there. How can an established institution be truly radical? How can it question and resist power, and at the same time co-exist with it -- in the ICA's case, in an elegantly-pillared Nash building on the Buckingham Palace driveway? Personally, I think an institution, and a state-funded one at that, can be radical and even, to some extent, "edgy and subversive", and I think the ICA has been. Whether it still is, I don't know -- I don't live in London (I enjoyed the Roberto Cuoghi sound installation I saw there last week, though).

But I can eavesdrop on London art world chatter. This week the levels are elevated; ICA director Ekow Eshun announced he was axing the ICA's Live and New Media department to save money. But he didn't just leave it there, with a budgetary explanation. No, Eshun rubbed salt into the wound and blamed the victim by making it sound as if Live Art was passé, dull, and irrelevant. Announcing the cuts, Eshun said "times change... I no longer feel that the artistic rationale for devoting considerable institutional attention to that art form – to the extent of maintaining a dedicated department to its pursuance – can be strongly made".

It's this stance which has caused an outcry and ignited a debate amongst interested parties. An angry entry in The Guardian's theatre blog yesterday by Lyn Gardner saw comments from some of the main players in London's live art scene, including Lois Keidan, who oversaw Live Arts at the ICA for almost fifteen years before co-founding the Live Art Development Agency, and Robert Pacitti, artistic director of The Spill Festival of performance, live art and experimental theatre.

[Error: unknown template video]

What is live art? It's basically art that happens in real time, that overlaps with gallery performance, contemporary dance, physical theatre and experimental theatre. I have to disagree with Eshun; live art certainly isn't out of fashion or irrelevant in other parts of the world. My report on the Yokohama Triennale stressed high-profile performances by Terence Koh, Saburo Teshigawara and Marina Abramovic. I've also been making the point for a while now that, while all sorts of things (records, books, films) may be in trouble because they're ubiquitous and digital, live performance has a strong future, because people still want to leave their computers from time to time and interact in physical space, experiencing something ephemeral, something that can't be archived, a fleeting and unique communal event. Live art that deals with the body -- in this age of disembodiment -- is all the more relevant.

[Error: unknown template video]

That's not to say Live Art doesn't have clichés all its own, especially body clichés. Nakedness is one, though I guess as long as it's taboo elsewhere it's going to be relevant in live art. I'm not a big fan of the Freak Show Self-Injury School of Franko B and Ron Athey, whose acts consist of bleeding themselves or attaching weights to their balls. Sure, I get it: church, circus, hospital, they're all connected. Pain can be a drug, and watching someone else suffer is never dull. But, you know, do I have to?

I have more time for Costes, who gave a performance in Paris which made 80% of the audience flee in terror (mainly to avoid getting piss and "shit" all over their clothes), a show I'll never forget. French body-altering artist Orlan -- I saw her last week at Frieze, excellently dressed, so you hardly noticed the horns -- is sort of interesting, although she and Genesis P-Orridge seem to have the same face these days. Mainly, though, I prefer people who do the poetry thing, or the observation thing; Pina Bausch, Forced Entertainment, Jan Fabré.

[Error: unknown template video]

It may be that the ICA's moment as the home of interesting live art passed long ago, in the heyday of John Ashford (who went on to The Place, a dance-oriented theatre in Euston I used to go to a lot when I lived in London) and Lois Keidan (who I was oddly obsessed with circa 1988 -- she not only resembled Helene Weigel, but seemed to me to incarnate all the glamour of the "edgy" ICA of the day).

It's sort of sad to see the ICA axing live art, at a time when I think it can only get more relevant, but it's sort of not-sad at the same time. There are other venues for this stuff. I think Eshun's big mistake is to diss the department as he was kissing it off; he now has London's live art community calling for his head on a plate. Some of them would probably be happy to see it chopped off in clouds of billowing dry ice, live in the ICA theatre.

Comments

[niemandsrose.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this post-- VERY interesting!

[kumakouji.livejournal.com]

Live performance tends to polarize, in my experience. That's why I don't agree that it's dull and passe. As an art form, It takes too many people out of their comfort zone to be dull.

Reality is reality -- I'm here and this is now, people think.
Acting is acting -- It's an expression of fiction from which I'm separated. I can enjoy it from a distance, people think. Same with paintings, music, movies... it's enjoyed from a distance, the viewer firmly in their reality, looking in on the art.

Live performance blurs the boundaries and it makes people uncomfortable. It's not quite reality, but it's not quite acting. It throws people and they don't know where they stand.

Do you remember that review in The Guardian Ian Gittins gave of your performance in 2007 at Spitz (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/jan/09/popandrock)?

In summary:

"Momus is a lyrical genius, *gush* erudite poignancy, poetry, *gush* remarkable talent... but what the fuck is he doing on stage? Stop dancing around in a wig and a lab coat, you big knob. TWO STARS OUT OF FIVE YOUVE RUINED EVERYTHING."

Needless to say, he didn't like your live art. Mainly for the reasons above I reckon.

[never-the-less.livejournal.com]

Ok, so how is the AA of all places "radical?"

[olliecrafoord.livejournal.com]

As per usual, a nice read.

quit

[(Anonymous)]

Oh dear its probably time for you to quit when people start saying
"As per usual, a nice read."
or get the job at the Guardian culture section

WTF in WC1

[(Anonymous)]

OMG I have never objected to the way Ekow runs the ICA until now; a lot of things he's done eg. sorting out free admission and/or appointing Mark Sladen from the Barbican have been good for London etc. HOWEVER Ekow never got the whole New Media thing, as was being the ed of Arena in the '90s; imagine one long marketing meeting from Hell interspersed with occasional TV appearances - the clued-up one was Kodwo. As you well know, Nick. Let's imagine a world where the elder Eshun ran the ICA?

Also cutting live arts when East London's artists are getting totally into performance whether as originators of new ideas, Leigh Bowery disciples or as Terence Koh groupies seems stupid and wilfully ignorant of the way the underground turns to mainstream. It's accessible because it's a spectacle but also because its creators are multitasking. It's a corrective to boring poseur rich people determining what's valuable culture. I could go on, but I've got to post yr cable. xx

[womanonfire.livejournal.com]

theres also been considerable discussion about this ICA issue in new media circles, as he slams us all by saying "...it’s my consideration that, in the main, the art form lacks the depth and cultural urgency to justify the ICA’s continued and significant investment in a Live & Media Arts department." Fairly lame considering, from what i've heard, without their corporate sponsors, they didn't make much of an investment in New Media in the first place. Their so called "space" for New Media Art has been described to me as some lab room under a staircase next to the toilets. However, artists have also told me, to spite outdated equipment and obvious low status in the ICA's master plan, they have fond memories of doing things events there. so they had a community to work with and expand upon. Seems to me he is blaming the medium when the real issue was their own commitment to new media arts practice in the first place. He might have announced a kind of "folding in" of new media/live art into their overall program instead of making himself sound like a fool with his "cultural urgency" argument. New Media Art is more relevant now culturally than it has ever been and will only become more so.

[neil-scott.livejournal.com]

I once saw Eshun on a train wearing a blue jumper with a big bright pink penis on the front. I don't think I've ever seen someone looking quite so regretful at their sartorial choice as he did then.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

The AA is committed to advanced and radical ideas in architecture, and to the most interesting ideas being discussed in wider intellectual circles. If you want to trace the history of some idea like "walkscapes" or "microarchitecture" or "inflatable architecture" or whatever, you'll probably have to face the fact that this idea was being discussed at the AA before it was discussed anywhere else. You'll also find repudiation of the AA an important part of the trajectory of conservatives like Quinlan Terry (http://imomus.livejournal.com/342852.html) (who of course think they're more radical than the AA, but that's their problem).

The Post-Bit Cha-Cha

[(Anonymous)]

I look at the ICA website to see what's on and often come away none the wiser. I'm not sure if it's the layout, the text size, or what.

Physical theatre/live art/contemporary dance is proving to be my favourite antithesis to social networking and blogging and endlessly dealing with people-as-words. Perhaps an extension of 'live music is the new vinyl'.

Kodwo / Ekow

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Ekow Eshun (now)

[Error: unknown template video]

Kodwo Eshun (interviewed in 1999)

[Error: unknown template video]

[jermynsavile.livejournal.com]

I just don't think that doing what is fashionable is the same as being radical. And being fashionable is not the same as being popular. Neither the ICA nor the AA do what is popular, or radical, but what they do do is broadly fashionable within the small self-appointed elites they work with.

I think that the agenda of both institutions is both aesthetically and socially conservative but, more depressingly, unimaginative. The fact that the AA discusses technical developments in architecture (and artistic practice is increasingly influenced more by technical than aesthetic or even social considerations) isn't a measure of their radicalism or otherwise. It's no different to people at Barratts or Wimpey talking about the properties of new bricks. Both institutions seem to be comfortable preaching only to the converted and not widening understanding of art/architecture or even "the most interesting ideas being discussed in wider intellectual circles". Even Tate Modern is better at that, god help us.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested to know whether you think the 1988 ICA of Lois Keidan and John Ashford is better or worse than the 2008 ICA of Ekow Eshun? Or do you see them as basically as "conservative and unimaginative" as each other?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Also, I think there's a really slippery relativism in your argument; it's a bit like saying "Leonardo da Vinci didn't do anything surprising for a genius. Inventing helicopters 400 years before anyone else is just as conservative and unimaginative, for a genius, as taking the 7.40 train from Penge every morning is for a stockbroker."

[jermynsavile.livejournal.com]

That is a very hard one to answer. The me of 1988 found the ICA of 1988 a lot more exciting than the me of 2008 finds the ICA of 2008. But that isn't necessarily the same as saying that one is better or worse, it might just be that I'm different and what it gives me. or doesn't give me, is different.

I work about a mile away from the ICA and visit it fairly regularly. I used to travel further distances that I wouldn't dream of doing now. I don't find it a particularly rewarding experience. And the bookshop is so incredibly narrow-minded as to be a joke: the same crap you'd find in the Tate Modern and half-a-dozen other public art funded spaces in the capital, or Bristol, or Newcastle, or wherever. Even commercial organisations like Magma do it better.

What I find easier to answer is that I would far prefer an ICA run by Kodwo to one run by Ekow. His enthusiasm, that eagerness to grasp the here and now and the past and mix it all up and try (sometimes failing) to do something creative with it or just interesting with it would seduce me every time. His ICA would surprise me. He writes better books too.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

I would far prefer an ICA run by Kodwo to one run by Ekow

I'm with you on that!

[lightelation.livejournal.com]

Because of the limitations of performance, often involving a living working human, the event becomes even more rarefied and valuable. You had to be a collector or somebody with pomp to see Terence Koh in Yokohama. Am I saying that performance art in museums is comparable to how you described iTunes' relationship with recorded music performance? Perhaps.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Cool knapsack, Kira!

[(Anonymous)]

"There are other venues for this stuff"
It's so tempting to say the ICA should be dismantled and reassembled somewhere cheaper and less precious (one of the few times i've been in the past few years was for a Jan Jelinek gig. He'd played for an hour and was quite obviously bringing his set to a close when a man walked on stage, grabbed the mic, made a sign to the box and broke the sudden silence with 'whoever has parked their red BMW outside, registration number blablabla, could you please move it, as it's in a restricted area.' Stunned silence. Mic feedback, silence. 'Er.. I mean, NOW.' Poor Jelinek still at 90 degrees to it all, bobbing away with his headphones on.)
But I resist, because the proportions of live artists to performance spaces in London is absurdly disproportionate, and the fact that there's not even one space anywhere near the centre of town which is properly devoted to the Live Arts is truly shameful. As Lois clearly explains, devotion is necessary if anything's going to happen. But I'm also deliberately pluralising the 'Live Art' brand because I think it's high time there was more crossover and communication between the hard core performance art which that often stands for, and the many other experiments being made with the 'live act' coming from theatre and beyond. The only real way to do this is with a venue, maybe something like the Hebbel am Ufer, the Volksbuehne, the Sophiensaele, or the other 2 places that have opened since I last came to Berlin. Yes, London deserves at least one place like that, and it should be in the centre of this town.

Ant - Rotozaza

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Hello Anton (http://imomus.livejournal.com/334948.html)!

Another way of looking at it is that Berlin is one of London's trendier outlying districts these days, what with Ryanair flights costing not much more than tube tickets!

Are you doing any more tabletop theatre?

[(Anonymous)]

Our next one's being made in NYC, works like ETQ, but you do it in supermarkets instead of cafes, and we don't get permission.
I think it's the other way round. Ryanair etc just a big scam put together a la nouvelle labour to enable London as everyone's favourite far-off crazy district, somewhere to stay just long enough to see a gig, eat in some quaint fish bar, drink a pint and then leave again, with the satisfaction of the flight being quicker and cheaper than anything you've just experienced.
I just added this to the guardian. It's a bit late for this kind of filth, i know...

Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson's assertion that the truth about the British economy can be summed up as "we count the money and we do the bullshit" can perhaps, in Eshun's house, be attributed to the cultural sector as well.

"To celebrate its 60th birthday, the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) teamed up with Sony Ericsson to host an exhibition called ‘All Tomorrow’s Pictures’. The ICA asked 59 leading artists, musicians and photographers to take a photograph that ‘represented the future’ using a Sony Ericsson K800i camera phone. Sony Ericsson wanted to spread the message that camera phones now deliver high quality photos. The 60th photograph was chosen from submissions from the general public.
‘No one wanted an empty brand-badging exercise. It was about exploring the creative potential of the ICA and of Sony Ericsson’s new phone,’ says ICA artistic director Ekow Eshun.
The exhibition launched in May and ran for two weeks. Afterwards the photos were compiled in a coffee table book. "

It gets worse. This is the kind of stuff that has been coming up again and again since he's been in the job.

"The Institute of Contemporary Art’s artistic director Ekow Eshun agrees that effective collaboration is a pre-requisite for success in this new way of working with the arts, as are transparency and shared values.
‘We prefer to work from the ground up on a brief alongside the brand. We don’t just want to put its name on an event. Working collaboratively means working from a sympathetic basis, with trust and mutual respect. This can be difficult, because sometimes everyone has a different agenda,’ he admits. ‘It can be particularly difficult for a cultural institution if a brand is only interested in sales, as sales is not our main focus. Our job is to open the public up to new ideas.’

from Brand Republic (http://www.brandrepublic.com/InDepth/Features/665129/CULTURE-FEATURE-Brands-show-off-cultural-streak/)

New ideas, mutual trust and respect. Thanks for your hard work Mr.Eshun.

Ant Hampton, Rotozaza

[never-the-less.livejournal.com]

I would hardly say the ideas that circulate at the AA are radical, unless you somehow think that all academic architecture (much of which is based in the US, much of which is the legacy of Peter Eisenman) is radical. Which, I suppose, in contrast to Quinlan Terry, perhaps are, if we are judging radicality by wanting to embody some sort of contemporariness/new-ness. Personally, I feel like that idea (new-ness/being contemporary) is kind of boring now that it has been around in architecture since say, 1898. (Maybe others would chose 1923.)

You are right though that the AA is pretty much the standard bearer of any *ideas* in the architectural academy in Europe -- which is oddly retardataire in comparison to the US (compared to other disciplines) in terms of treating architecture as an intellectual pursuit. Personally, I just find the ideas kind of...eh. Maybe useful in generating new forms, but as ideas on their own, they are kind of flimsy in my mind, and certainly woefully ignorant of their possible histories.

[grzeg.livejournal.com]

Ironically, it was the likes of Hadid, Liebeskind, Tschumi, those Post-Modern (no-longer paper) architects that Momus abhors, that shaped the AA to what it became today.

Costes!!

[danielgiraffe.livejournal.com]

What a blast from the past! When I lived in Paris in the late 80s a bought a Costes tape from a tiny independent music seller just off the Rue St Maur. Of course it scared the living daylights out of me (I'm much more at home with melodies, beats and riffs, if truth be told) but the music buzzed with wilful rage. Probably the most thrilling music performance I've seen in the last couple of years is Kap Bambino http://www.myspace.com/kapbambino.

Thanks for the piece

Daniel