For class next week, you should have read pages 7-49 in the Goldberg book and the Jon Erickson article, Performing Distinctions (see post below – Jan. 29 – for link). You also should have created a del.icio.us page, added 4 links to your del.icio.us, created a Flickr site, and registered a Word Press account so that you can post here on this blog in the future. Remember to email me your del.icio.us URL, your Flickr URL, and the email address you used to join Word Press (even if it is the same email you already gave me–just so I will know and add you as a contributor).
You now need to post at least two thoughtful comments here (click on the “comments” link at the bottom of this entry) based on the readings. Comments should be at least 50 words each. If you want to take me up on the extra credit options, those should be posted as entries instead of comments. You can do this by clicking on “New Post” in the upper left hand corner of the blog front page when you are signed in to Word Press with your user name.
Here are some considerations (although you can introduce your own topic from the reading or respond to a comment from your peers instead):
- From your reading of the text and the implications and assumptions of the texts, propose a qualified definition of “performance art” (“qualified” meaning that we agree from the outset that an actual or binding definition is at least problematic, if not impossible).
- How does Erickson’s perspective and critique of Goldberg color your reading of her text? And what if I told you that RoseLee wears leather pants? In what way does that information affect your processing of her claims?
- How does this version of brief histories of Futurists and Constructivists differ from what you have learned about these artists/movements previously? Why might that be so? If you had never before heard of these art movements, how does this introduction fit into your current understanding of contemporary performance art?