tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-575800415548801005.post3307196418447101659..comments2023-10-28T07:35:48.249-07:00Comments on Keith Hennessy blogs as Zero Performance: WHY I READ MY TEXTS IN PERFORMANCEKeith Hennessyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00851890263781094400noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-575800415548801005.post-57015174072240276812010-02-21T16:45:20.126-08:002010-02-21T16:45:20.126-08:00Thank you for writing this, collecting all of thes...Thank you for writing this, collecting all of these beautiful reasons, and making a terrific case for this. It feels serendipitous that I read this today, as I have been struggling with figuring out how to deal with text in my own upcoming show. I had this idea that I <i>should</i> memorize it or have my chorus/company memorize theirs, but 1) I'm sure I'll be working on the text to the very last minute 2) I'm working with a group of incredible mostly non-actors and 3) it bothered me that this question of memorization came up in terms of "<i>should</i>" anyway. So, thank you for the reminder that some of my favorite preceding performance artists and feminists have encountered this same question, and come up with compelling answers/work. You included! I hope you don't mind that I reposted your post (full text and attribution/URL included, of course) on my blog. All the best to you!Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08695603379761294991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-575800415548801005.post-90444283178868598002009-10-19T14:04:02.606-07:002009-10-19T14:04:02.606-07:00The hard thing for me is that you are answering a ...The hard thing for me is that you are answering a question I didn't ask ("why I read my texts in performance"), and so I feel like I'm in a dialogue I didn't start. This must have come up as an issue your (re)viewers have voiced? I can understand that- viewers like to know when a performer is in character, and when they are not. It keeps the boundaries clear and they know when and what they are looking at. I was at your performance at POW POW and loved the movement from performer performing to performer negotiating (Derrida's "communication"?), from the cognitive to the meta-cognitive, from the physical to (drum roll) the meta-physical. This action lets the viewer (participant? witness? etc.?, thinking of Boal's "spect-actors") be a part of the history of the action and not just witness to the action. For example, my thought/idea that you peck bird seed off the cymbal in the window contributed to your action of banging your head against the cymbal for like five minutes. As people came into the space mid-action, I thought of how this must have fit their expectation of what a "performance artist" would be engaged in: a seemingly ridiculous, insane, inane action, by someone in some sort of costume, that the viewer is supposed to go along with as art, solemnly, or at least respectfully. Come have a look, stay for a while because that's what you came for, leave as soon as you get bored or as is convenient. Your action allowed that possible reading - didn't fight it, but was so much more! Maybe this is a core issue with performance/live art- its main strength is the present, right? It's live. I think when you add verbal communication you open the whole thing up to include the past and future as well. Perhaps bringing the past and future to the present is an alternate definition of the meta-physical. I don't know. I've never been able to understand Derrida until you talked about his writing on Saturday night. Thanks for including me in the Derrida Club. I can't wait to get my fan club materials in the mail.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18082511189123089958noreply@blogger.com