it is also fun to relate the Tino Sehgal to the David Neumann!

I must disagree with Ms Darst’s assertion of our glee at dental assault. And, hopefully, there is no “winning,” no last word. It’s a conversation. Isn’t the solution to misunderstanding more conversation, not less?

And my apologies to Ms Rousse. I was not intending to put words into your mouth (if you were referring to my postings). I know you are perfectly able to speak for yourself on whatever topic you choose.

To clarify my part, I have little interest in the intentions of the artist — they are as opaque to me as to anyone else. But I am interested in how these various works function, how it is put together, how it lives (or dies) in our minds and bodies, and enjoy engaging in that discussion.

It is interesting to be in the position of a “reviewer” — which I am new to as well. I agree: we all change our minds and when it gets written down it seems permanent. But that is what is so useful about this blog forum: we can change our minds and add it to the mix the next day/week/month.

I’m a little confused by the conversation on this board. It somewhat reminds me of my undergrad experience at the University–being “responsible” was a philosophically weighty term–performances were referred as “deadly”. I think this type of conversation kills possibilities rather than opens them.

I work at an art center for disabled adults. Our method of creating work is always about saying, “YES… AND…”

I guess I feel great works is of great consequence. But there has to be room for all types of work in the “conversation”…. deadly or lovely or whatever.

I did like hearing the Walker guard singing in the galleries: This is propaganda, you know, you know…

more on my BLOG!!!

http://www.scottycruz.wordpress.com

For me, it was one of my favorite works of all time; right up there with Meg Stuarts’ “Forgeries Love and Other Matters”2005,6 and Wooster Groups’ “House/Lights” 2003. Because I’m only 25.

My opinion also changes over time. I try to put on the page something I can live with. I’d still go with what I said about Wampler. I can see what the more complimentary viewers saw/felt/got out of it, but it continues not to be what I got out of it. –Oh no, I’m trying to get the last word. I’ll stop.

I wouldn’t want to forbid any type of response. But I see that sometimes we dissolve into showing each other our sensibilities–using our interpretation of the art as an ego boost.

I am not someone who is very interested in hashing things out, blogging ad finitum, until the winner gets the last word.

Not a review-reader myself, I am not accustomed to writing or reading much about people’s creations, but I am trying, stretching. It can feel like standing in judgement, and who am I to do that? And it’s kind of scary to have it all down in permanent, archived form, too. The experience develops and I remember and digest things days later. What I write, that isn’t how I continue to feel, but I don’t continue to write when/if it’s changed for me because I’m pretty sure no one is that interested how I feel, how my views might have changed! When I first saw Claude Wampler’s piece in March, 2007, I thought, “How dumb: A video!” But after a week, a few months, I considered it one of the best shows I experienced in 2007. And now, nearly a year later, not so much for 2008.

I’d rather discuss the performance, the performers, who rarely get talked about, the collaborating artists whose work is onstage (set and costume designers). I don’t want to talk about the intention or what we imagine the intentions to be, unless we are close to the the source. If a creator makes a statement like “This piece is about _____” then, yes, we have to hold him/her to that intention. Hopefully people have stopped trying to make pieces “about” things. I can see being “inspired by” something. Better to just write literally about something.

Mainly, what is there to talk about? What it looked/felt like, what it conjured up? I know these are loaded questions and that there is tons to talk about. But just dust off the copy of Strunk & White, please, wouldya?

The verbosity can be enlightening, but mostly it puts me off my art. And reading the “gloves off” posts last week did disturb me. Any time the word “intellectual” is used an alarm goes off and it triggers another word: pretentious. I liked “feedforward” very, very much. I won’t compare it to any other Out There show. I fell in and out of love with all of them at many points. And I don’t think the word “entertaining” has to mean it has less value, or lets us off-the-hook in our responsibility to duly process it.

BoooooooooooOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooring

I found this piece so very BOring……….

I apologize. Again, please, please resubmit your comment!

For example:

1. I would consume whatever I felt like and soon become unhealthy(er).

2. My kids wouldn’t get fed, bathed, clothed, rested, or educated, and probably would get hit by a bus.

3. I would have even less say about the way the various communities I belong to function: social, artistic, political, national, global, etc.

But you asked what might occur if I just accepted what is going on without inserting myself so much. Which is a different thing than what I said. And I am having trouble relating this question to my point about entertainment without responsibility. So I can only say that I agree: I am already present and inserted. And my response is my response, and I posted some of it already. So what would inserting myself less be? The consequences of that depend on what it means — I don’t know how to insert myself any more or less than I do.

Maybe I misinterpreted your comment about being entertained without much responsibility. But to me it seemed to suggest that you found feedforward less prone to provoke the type of discussion that you found nauseating last week. That somehow it was an entertainment that did not require responsibility (however we define that).

If this is so, I respectfully disagree. I think that it does a disservice to Mr Neumann’s work to suggest that it is somehow without a substance that can be approached intellectually as well as emotionally — or critically as well as uncritically — or responsibly as well as irresponsibly — or as entertainment as well as…whatever the opposite of that is. I feel that these perspectives can all come up with interesting responses and that there is plenty of material in this piece to justify all sorts of responses.