In the "Chicana Identity and Performance Art" piece on Laura Esparza and Nao Bustamante, these two performance artists' works are described as relying heavily upon intersubjectivity, upon willing and invested contribution from the audience. Bustamante, at the time of her "Indigurrito" performances, told the audience they must participate in order for her to continue on with the performance. Later, Bustamante is quoted saying, "One of the many wonderful paradoxes about performance is that actually you are controlling me right now..." (pg. 94). If this is the case, does this level of audience control change in the context of intersubjectivity seen in Margolles' works, specifically in "Vaporization"? Are these two cases of intersubjectivity equally offensive and alienating? What characteristics separate the two?
Secondly, with "The Couple in the Cage," I wonder about the chosen use of the cage, which is itself a significant component leading to unrest and disgust among viewers. If, as the video suggests, the artists' purpose was to offer a "satirical comment" on the past, why did the cage (an iteration of which was only featured in a couple of the video/photo examples we saw from the "past") seem an important part to incorporate? Was it for technical purposes (i.e., kids could have pulled Coco Fusco's wig off if there were no bars to stop them)? Was it to intensify the demarcation between "observer" and "observed"? If so, did the artists not dress and act differently enough for this relationship to be implied without a cage? Was the cage there to make viewers feel safe on the other side, much as the U.S.-Mexico border makes many U.S. citizens feel secure knowing there's a wall there keeping people out (or in)? Or perhaps the cage was there to say, simply, the Guatinauis (for the people who believed they were such) had no choice, had no place to hide, were necessarily subject to exploitation, as the indigenous people before them were?
Further, with the cage in place, viewers faced optional intersubjectivity (as opposed to Bustamante's and Margolles' forced intersubjectivity). Viewers could choose to put money in a box to watch the "Guatinauis" tell a story, dance or reveal genitals. OR they could just stand and watch from a distance. If intersubjectivity is utilized, is it preferable (from an artistic standpoint) that it be forced or optional?
If you want to consider optional versus forced intersubjectivitiy, think of Margolles forcing her audience to literally inhale the subjects.
ReplyDeleteI vote optional as more effective.
Also, the cage was necessary to make a point I think. By putting them in a cage, Fusco forces the idea of wild animal caged at the zoo/domistication of a beast, creating even more of an us vs. them concept of spectacle.