Accessing Performance continued

After two days of intensive work around the topic “Accessing Performance” and condensed exchanges around our respective projects within the Academy of Finland funded research project How to Do Things with Performance, a moment for rest and reflection is a much-needed opportunity to try understand what happened. Accessing performance after the fact is nearly always difficult, although we did our best to document the workshops, presentations, discussions and performances that took place on 17th and 18th May in the studio space next to the Research Pavilion.

The experience of doing everything twice, repeating the same basic structure of workshops, seminars and performances and screenings twice was perhaps the most exhausting and exciting part of these days. We were all four of us doing either two completely different things, or then the same thing in a new variation in our seminar presentations and performances or screenings. Sharing and exploring various writing exercises during the two morning workshops was the least spectacular, but in some sense the most inspiring part. The workshops were led by Hanna Järvinen and Pilvi Porkola on the first day, and by Tero Nauha and me (Annette Arlander) on the second.

The seminars in the afternoons were probably the most fruitful for the research at hand. Hearing each other’s papers and adding comments and questions was useful. My task was mainly to provide brief introductions to the topics, to How to do things with performance? on the first day and How to do things with documentation? on the second. When listening to my colleagues well prepared and thoughtful papers I feel I should have done much more on my part.

Hanna Järvinen experimented with the format of performance lecture or lecture performance in her two versions of From Document to Performance to Document to Performance to – What? She asked what is the significance of past performance and documentation in the present and what is the role of the absences and silences in allowing for epistemological inquiry about performance, documents, and re-performance? What happens when a performance about a performance about a performance is re-performed?

Tero Nauha, in his paper Superposition of performance? proposed to shift focus from the economic apparatus, the request for accessible knowledge that is economically viable, useful and productive, into fictioning, where performance thinks, already. In his second paper, Performance thinking Nauha regarded the level of indeterminacy and indifference of performance as a practice of thought. Rather than focusing on the accessibility in knowledge or the ‘standard’ of art his presentation inquired on non-standard postures taking place in performance.

Pilvi Porkola described in her paper The Library Essays – between different spaces her project in Maunula Library, where she explores how the performative turn can be understood in the context of public institutions; how institutions can be understood as experimental places; and what performance art can do in that context. In her second presentation Porkola presented the online publication ICE-HOLE and launched its latest issue.

The performances in the evenings, despite being polished performances, where moments of artistic experimentation, too. Translating and relocating a site-specific audio work is a challenging task, as is performing live with the same raw material in ever new variations, for instance adding freshly recorded local sounds. Pilvi Porkola recreated in Fragments of Library Essays some parts of the Library project, including the recorded audio play performed in English. Tero Nauha performed A thought of performance? using a pre-recorded text on vinyl record, mixed with live sound with a Theremin and voice, demonstrating the queer cloning of some gestures of thought. For my part I (Annette Arlander) showed for the first time a compilation for screening of Animal Years 1 (2003-2009) on the first nights and Animal Years 2 (2010-2014) on the second. Watching these together with others was an important experience, although I realize I am quite bored with the work after all these years.

That is one of the problematic dimensions of accessing performance through documentation. For the artist, the act compiling and showing old works can be illuminating and necessary, but it can be frustrating, too, since it is often much more exciting to create new work. Here combining documentation and live performance can be a solution; the work has some continuation but is nevertheless constantly evolving.

What are your thoughts on accessing performance now, Pilvi?

Well, when speaking of the question of open access I have been thinking about the library as an institution, as a kind of fulfilled utopia of open access. The library institution is changing; some libraries offer today much more than books: music studios, working rooms, customers’ workstations, space and equipment for workshops, a small stage and so on. If I think for example of Library 10, in the center of Helsinki, there are many events going on there all time, like advice for seniors, Finnish language cafes, discussions, talks and workshops organized by citizens. So, how to think this change in the context of knowledge production? I read this transformation as a good example of the performative turn.

As for artistic research, I think there are still many existing forms we can use for sharing the things we do and the thoughts we have. For example, I’m happy we launched ICE HOLE – Live Art Journal issue 6 (www.icehole.fi) here at the Research Pavilion. ICE HOLE is an online magazine based on videos and texts, published by Reality Research Center (an artist society based in Helsinki). Issue 6 is created in collaboration with our research group; it is focusing on the Kick off – seminar we organised last autumn. This special issue works as a kind of documentation of that event as well as a platform to share multiple perspectives and aspects on the question how to do things with performance.

 

 

Accessing Performance

Preparations for “Accessing Performance”, a two-day event on Wednesday May 17th and Thursday May 18th in the Artistic Research Pavilion on Giudecca, are in full swing in the studio space neighbouring the exhibition. Access is key: access to the space is possible when the right key is found, access to the local internet is granted with the proper password, and then there are all the technical practicalities of access such as finding the right adapter between the HDMI cable and a USB port to connect the computer with the video projector, to find the right cables for the loudspeakers and the computer and so on. This is all mundane and simple compared with the adjustments needed in building the complicated performance instrument consisting of a record player, a theremin, a sampler and more that Tero Nauha constructs for his performance “A thought of performance?” Meanwhile, Pilvi Porkola is setting up a tiny skeleton sitting on a book, photographing it for an updated version of the poster for her Library Essays, an audio work translated into English for this occasion. At the other side of the studio, Hanna Järvinen is finding access to her laptop, a challenge at this day and age when the tools we use are the property of the institutions that employ us and limit our access to what files can be moved where. As the video refuses to be embedded in the plans, circumvention of the technical controls is required, a simple hack that allows documentation of a past performance be included in this performance.

Both days have a full program, divided into three sections, all of which can be attended separately. In the mornings, from 10 to 12 there is an open workshop on performative writing and related practices. After a break for lunch, from 14 to 16 there is an afternoon seminar, featuring presentations related to the Academy of Finland funded research project How To Do Things With Performance. And in the evenings, from 18 to 21, there are performances and screenings. Besides Pilvi Porkola’s Library Essays and Tero Nauha’s A Thought of Performance, Annette Arlander will screen her video works Animal Years 1 (2003-2009) on Wednesday and Animal Years 2 (2010-2014) on Thursday, making this the first occasion where the whole series is shown consecutively.

So, Hanna, how does it feel to prepare for this event today?

As someone dealing with documents of past events and documentation of presentations, limits posed by both copyright and technology are a constant frustration. It is one of the points of this Research Pavilion that there is a tension between Open Access and art. Open Access is an ideal in academe, but it is in a perverse relation to art and to copyright: an artist should be able to make a living with their work, and the aura of the art work has traditionally relied on limited access, as Walter Benjamin noted.

Performance art in particular is all about its ontological scarcity – the fact that you had to be at a particular place and at a particular time to really have access to a particular work. Yet, paradoxically, artists and academics are all in the same boat, today. Open Access rests on the idea that the researcher does not make any money out of what they produce, that their salary is paid by an institution – which is increasingly not the case. In Finland, over 70% of teaching and research faculty is on short-term contracts, most with no hope for tenure or even career development. Academics are becoming like the artists whose work seems to be important only when it lines the pockets of institutions. In the case of academe, these are the international publishing conglomerates that demand payment in exchange for access: either access in the form of payment for publications or payment for imagined revenues lost in exchange for publication as Open Access.

For artists and researchers alike, current copyright law seems only to serve the dead, their heirs, and the institutions owning the actual product we others strive to access. Technology creates only further obstacles, particularly apparent today when the document on the institution’s property – the machine I used to edit a document of a performance I was taking part in making – tells me I have no rights to access. At the moment I placed the documentation into the machine that is the institution, the reverse of Benjamin’s dream of loss of aura took place: the work acquired a scarcity unimaginable at the time that Benjamin was imagining his utopia of technological reproducibility.

And Tero, what are your expectations?

The performance is a complicated apparatus, which makes it so exciting. I am interested in the gesture of thought, which is not correlated with philosophical thought, or philosophising. So, performance is not only based on these forms of thought based on philosophy, which is somewhat decisional and in that way how we build the world in every instant through decisions. The decision cuts and produces the world, the world that it is reflecting on. So, performance has this also, which makes it accessible, but it is also something we can analyse, reduce or reflect upon and withdraw from. Still, I have built an apparatus, which seems to be expanding. At first, some time ago, it was only my voice recorded on the vinyl record, and then the experimentation with Theremin was joined with it. Very recently, I have joined a simple sample sequencer with this apparatus. It is something that I can barely control, and I have very little access to all of its possibilities. But, through this, I have come to realise, that I am not interested in possibilities or potentialities, but in the virtual and inaccessibility. That is, something that will not be in my control of decision, but each and every time creates something else. The apparatus thinks in the same gesture, where I am partaking in it as a one, rather limited and decisional operator. I am not able to reflect on the performance while I am in it. Moreover, the afterthought is another kind of register. So, what I am interested in this is that performance is for quite the most part inaccessible for reflection, but at the same time the performance is really thinking while doing it’s thing — saying what it’s doing and doing what it’s saying.

(to be continued)

 

 

VT (Re-blogged): VIRTUAL (PRESENT) REALITY

Text published at the website www.virtualpresenttour.com, as part of the project ‘Virtual Tour’ by Mireia c. Saladrigues.
.

.

‘Virtual Tour’ by Mireia c. Saladrigues (Doctoral Department – Academy of Fine Arts – Uniarts Helsinki) is in show at the exhibition ‘You Gotta Say Yes to Another Access’ in the Research Pavilion from 10th of May to 2nd of July.

VT (Re-blogged): STARTING

Text published at the website www.virtualpresenttour.com, as part of the project ‘Virtual Tour’ by Mireia c. Saladrigues.  

Everything is more a less ready for the opening after the tremendously hectic and busy week. But Niran had quite a surprise this morning when she came back to the Pavilion. One part of her delicate installation, made of about 150 photographs and strings, had been moved. Cleaners may constantly face difficulties while doing their job. We all know of cases of cleaners that have swept artworks away. For example, in the Museion Museum in Bolzano, the installation ‘Where shall we go dancing tonight?’ by Sara Goldschmied and Eleonora Chiari ended up in the garbage. Here no one thought that the cleaning woman might need to plug the vacuum cleaner, so she used Niran’s socket…

  

‘Virtual Tour’ by Mireia c. Saladrigues (Doctoral Department – Academy of Fine Arts – Uniarts Helsinki) is in show at the exhibition ‘You Gotta Say Yes to Another Access’ in the Research Pavilion from 10th of May to 2nd of July.

You gotta say yes to another access

HenkSlager-JanKaila_blogiin

 

The current rhetoric of the Open Access project – as put down i.a. in the Berlin Declaration – seems to want to answer the mechanism of exclusion intrinsic to the academic system of publishing. In their article “The Political Nature of the Book” (2013) Janneke Adema and Gary Hall draw an interesting parallel with the way artists in the 1960s confronted the commodification-oriented gallery system by opposing it with a new form of experimentation – using the book as a democratic medium. Similarly, over the past decade the potential of digital publishing has been presented in the scholarly world as medium-specific possibilities to develop counter-institutional forms of dissemination. An overall academic optimism arose: open access would achieve the complete accessibility of research results and thus – in the spirit of the current state of the democracy – break down the boundaries between the academic community and the rest of society.

This optimism, however, was almost immediately framed by the rhetoric of the neoliberal agenda: research should constantly be measured by the yardstick of transparency, accountability, discoverability, usability and efficiency. The net result was the emergence of a culture of peer-reviewed journal articles. A form of publishing that neatly copied the quality control procedures and the preservation structures of the profit-driven academic publishing houses. A form of publishing also that ultimately tried to exclude any form of experimentation for the sake of maintaining the confidence of the academic community.

How should artistic research relate to this development? Should it be, in the spirit of this form of research, a critical, self-reflexive, processual, non-goal oriented way of thinking about dissemination? How can such a form of conceptual openness be peer-reviewed? Does artistic research perhaps need a recalibration or a revision of the assessment criteria (such as relevance, ground breaking, originality, ambition, risk, topicality, beyond the state of art, scientific approach, suitability of methods, feasibility, broader impact). And ultimately, does it have the ability to question the radicalism of Access anew?

Jan Kaila and Henk Slager

This text is a curators’ statement that will also be present in the Research Pavilion for visitors to read.