The argument I’m trying to make in the piece centers on using the performance and documentary forms at work in S.E.P. as source material for writing about S.E.P. That’s what the essay is “about.” The quoted passage centers on one way I understand the connection between memory and materiality in a performing body. Like I said in my response to Paddy on Tumblr, the essay has more to do with my resistance to talking about performance in terms of essences or essential qualities. That I get sort of called out about that here is nice because I get to see ways I’m doing the very thing I claim to resist. The whole forcing the audience word choice was poor, but rooted for me in an excitement or an A-HA experience or idea rather than making the audience all think or feel the same thing. But I’m going to change it because I think it needs it.

I buy into the hype that the performances in Seven Easy Pieces were re-performances and not re-enactments. There’s an ontological distinction at work for me that I spend a good deal of time talking about in the essay. One of the biggest challenges of talking about performance pieces as art are the issues surrounding art and objecthood. I want to resist talking about S.E.P. or the performances they are based on simply as/as simple objects. I am less sure about the retrospective work at the MOMA. I guess I find S.E.P. to be more ingenuous than The Artist is Present and the retrospective works? I’m not sure. But my essay isn’t about the MOMA works or their problematics. I think the other major change to the quoted paragraph would be to say “The answer gets increasingly complicated because of the introduction of Abramović’s body as a metonym for the performances that she re-performed, standing as a material marker of the interpretive act of remembering.” I stand by the rest of it. Metonymy is a useful concept to talk about bodies in performance and particularly the body at work in S.E.P. These are some of my initial thoughts.

As far as academic writing goes, I get it, but I’m always surprised at how strong the reactions are. Paddy has already owned up to taking one paragraph out of context. It felt like poaching. To be fair I opened myself up to that by posting the snippet in the first place. No harm no foul. But i disagree with her friend that I was demonstrating some type of linguistic privilege. I want people to understand what I write and not just other academics. But yeah I’m drawing on a particular discourse and sometimes the language I use boggs things down. Sometimes I just write badder sentences. It’s a process for me.

The argument I’m trying to make in the piece centers on using the performance and documentary forms at work in S.E.P. as source material for writing about S.E.P. That’s what the essay is “about.” The quoted passage centers on one way I understand the connection between memory and materiality in a performing body. Like I said in my response to Paddy on Tumblr, the essay has more to do with my resistance to talking about performance in terms of essences or essential qualities. That I get sort of called out about that here is nice because I get to see ways I’m doing the very thing I claim to resist. The whole forcing the audience word choice was poor, but rooted for me in an excitement or an A-HA experience or idea rather than making the audience all think or feel the same thing. But I’m going to change it because I think it needs it.

I buy into the hype that the performances in Seven Easy Pieces were re-performances and not re-enactments. There’s an ontological distinction at work for me that I spend a good deal of time talking about in the essay. One of the biggest challenges of talking about performance pieces as art are the issues surrounding art and objecthood. I want to resist talking about S.E.P. or the performances they are based on simply as/as simple objects. I am less sure about the retrospective work at the MOMA. I guess I find S.E.P. to be more ingenuous than The Artist is Present and the retrospective works? I’m not sure. But my essay isn’t about the MOMA works or their problematics. I think the other major change to the quoted paragraph would be to say “The answer gets increasingly complicated because of the introduction of Abramović’s body as a metonym for the performances that she re-performed, standing as a material marker of the interpretive act of remembering.” I stand by the rest of it. Metonymy is a useful concept to talk about bodies in performance and particularly the body at work in S.E.P. These are some of my initial thoughts.

As far as academic writing goes, I get it, but I’m always surprised at how strong the reactions are. Paddy has already owned up to taking one paragraph out of context. It felt like poaching. To be fair I opened myself up to that by posting the snippet in the first place. No harm no foul. But i disagree with her friend that I was demonstrating some type of linguistic privilege. I want people to understand what I write and not just other academics. But yeah I’m drawing on a particular discourse and sometimes the language I use boggs things down. Sometimes I just write badder sentences. It’s a process for me.

These were not reperformed by the reperformers at her MoMA retrospective; they only reperformed her work.

These were not reperformed by the reperformers at her MoMA retrospective; they only reperformed her work.

Also, I’ll admit that I misread your above comment (the one I initially responded to in the thread: “This buys into the idea that something more is being said by academics. My point is that in this case, that’s not an accurate assessment.”) I missed the “in this case” and thought you were speaking much more generally, hence my very strong reaction to it. I also in no way meant to imply that “all academic language is moronic jargon and academics are blowhards” was a direct quote from you — I figured the somewhat hyperbolic language would make it clear that it was an interpretation of what I gleaned from the overall tone of your post and the comments, not exactly what you had said. Honestly, it never occurred to me that anyone would read it as an actual quote.

With that said, some of my comments still stand — you haven’t actually addressed “The Problem of Academic Language” in this post; you’ve addressed the problem of a particular paragraph that is not especially convincing and perhaps poorly worded. There IS a lot of jargon thrown around in the art world (anyone who has spent a lot of time reading artist statements and gallery press releases can attest to that.) However, I really don’t think that this is a problem with academic language inherently — more the improper use of it.

Also, as I said before, it’s often pretty useless to try to evaluate an academic essay based on a singe paragraph presented without any context. Often in academic essays, a good deal of space is spent early on establishing the specific types of language, theoretic framework, etc. that will be used throughout the rest of the work. I wrote an essay once that drew heavily upon a concept of “historiographic metafiction,” a term coined by literary theorist Linda Hutcheon and described at length in her books. I’m sure if you took some of the paragraphs from said essay out of context, they’d look totally ridiculous/generally meaningless (I dare someone to find a more jargon-y phrase than ‘historiographic metafiction. Seriously.) However, I spent much of the introduction explaining how and why this term would be deployed throughout the paper (and, by extension, that any mention of it should be taken as a reference to Hutcheon.) Part of the problem with taking academic language out of an academic context is that these things aren’t always explicitly clear.

Lastly, in response to your comment: “From there we can discuss the content, which contrary to Rachel’s comment was exactly what I did at the end of this post based on my interpretation.” I don’t think you actually DO discuss the content at the end of the post. “How is this different from any other performative reenactment” isn’t really a discussion — it’s a question. If you think tremblings is wrong and are going to publicly criticize his/her work, why not actually make an argument against it?

Also, in response to your response to Jesse’s comment, I might be wrong about this, but I’m fairy certain that 7 EP wasn’t re-performed during the Marina retrospective; since 5 of the 7 pieces in 7EP were re-performances BY Marina of the work of other artists, it doesn’t really make sense to have hired performers re-performing a performance that wasn’t hers to begin with. There might have been video, however.

Also, I’ll admit that I misread your above comment (the one I initially responded to in the thread: “This buys into the idea that something more is being said by academics. My point is that in this case, that’s not an accurate assessment.”) I missed the “in this case” and thought you were speaking much more generally, hence my very strong reaction to it. I also in no way meant to imply that “all academic language is moronic jargon and academics are blowhards” was a direct quote from you — I figured the somewhat hyperbolic language would make it clear that it was an interpretation of what I gleaned from the overall tone of your post and the comments, not exactly what you had said. Honestly, it never occurred to me that anyone would read it as an actual quote.

With that said, some of my comments still stand — you haven’t actually addressed “The Problem of Academic Language” in this post; you’ve addressed the problem of a particular paragraph that is not especially convincing and perhaps poorly worded. There IS a lot of jargon thrown around in the art world (anyone who has spent a lot of time reading artist statements and gallery press releases can attest to that.) However, I really don’t think that this is a problem with academic language inherently — more the improper use of it.

Also, as I said before, it’s often pretty useless to try to evaluate an academic essay based on a singe paragraph presented without any context. Often in academic essays, a good deal of space is spent early on establishing the specific types of language, theoretic framework, etc. that will be used throughout the rest of the work. I wrote an essay once that drew heavily upon a concept of “historiographic metafiction,” a term coined by literary theorist Linda Hutcheon and described at length in her books. I’m sure if you took some of the paragraphs from said essay out of context, they’d look totally ridiculous/generally meaningless (I dare someone to find a more jargon-y phrase than ‘historiographic metafiction. Seriously.) However, I spent much of the introduction explaining how and why this term would be deployed throughout the paper (and, by extension, that any mention of it should be taken as a reference to Hutcheon.) Part of the problem with taking academic language out of an academic context is that these things aren’t always explicitly clear.

Lastly, in response to your comment: “From there we can discuss the content, which contrary to Rachel’s comment was exactly what I did at the end of this post based on my interpretation.” I don’t think you actually DO discuss the content at the end of the post. “How is this different from any other performative reenactment” isn’t really a discussion — it’s a question. If you think tremblings is wrong and are going to publicly criticize his/her work, why not actually make an argument against it?

Also, in response to your response to Jesse’s comment, I might be wrong about this, but I’m fairy certain that 7 EP wasn’t re-performed during the Marina retrospective; since 5 of the 7 pieces in 7EP were re-performances BY Marina of the work of other artists, it doesn’t really make sense to have hired performers re-performing a performance that wasn’t hers to begin with. There might have been video, however.

I feel badly about that. I’m sorry, and I’d like to retract that part of what I said. I was being disingenuous.

As a recent academic who has been writing about art in non-academic genres for many years, I always feel deeply conflicted when this kind of conversation comes up. I hate it when different genres of art writing are pitted against one another. Seems to me that it takes all kinds, and cross-fertilization between journalism, criticism and history can be really generative. This blog is a good hybrid. Part of the reason I come here at least once every day.