| drew davidson |
 

 

 

The Performance of a Painting:

Introduction

by

Drew Davidson

 

 

Chapter One

 

 

            The topic of this study was sparked while I was majoring in Speech Communication and minoring in Art History.  In my communication classes, I was exploring different modes of expressing thoughts and feelings.  There were studies that dealt with verbal and nonverbal communication, theories explaining why this behavior hinted at that emotion, and performances that explored experience.  I was fascinated by these modes and how they opened up new ideas and feelings for me.  Concurrently, in my art history classes, I was having difficulty expressing my experiences with art.  In painting, music, sculpture and dance there seems to be eloquence "beyond" words.  A painting or a song could move me to tears and fill me with joy, unleashing feelings in meaningful, magical eloquence.  I wanted to express the eloquence of this experience.

            Thus, I began to question the nature of experiencing art.  I asked, is there a way to express the experience of art in a manner that would allow a person to re-experience another's viewing of it?  How do viewers perceive and construct meaning from a painting?  Can this experience of viewing a painting be construed as a performative event involving viewer and painting?

 

Purpose of Study

 

            Two questions guide this study.  1) If the experience of viewing a painting is performative, could it not be expressed performatively?  2) Would a performance of this


experience be an effective mode of expression that allows others to experience one's viewing of a painting?     

              The experience of a painting is often expressed through critical analysis.  However, the discourse of the academy often felt like a "comfortless straitjacket" in which an essay is written to "conform to the scientific model of thesis and support" (Freedman, Frey and Zauhar 2).  With this discourse, my attempts seemed to flounder around in incoherent, disconnected paragraphs.  I got lost in this academic sea of discourse, swimming circles within whirls of words, struggling to express the experience of painting.  The imposed order of academic discourse seemed restrictive.  I was interested in exploring spaces that were less "rigid [and] dichotomous" in their conventions and allowed for more experimentation in the expression of thoughts and feelings (Heuvel 13).  I was seeking a mode of expression that "captured some of the inconsistency [and] indeterminacy" of the affair of viewing painting (18). 

            I had intuitively sensed a kind of performing in my experience of a painting, an experience of overlapping and indeterminate possibilities.  Perhaps, it was this performative quality that I had missed when attempting to discuss and describe it before through critical analysis.  This insufficiency felt analogous to the idea that a text on the page was different on the stage (Reinelt and Roach 5).  If so, the experience of viewing painting could be repeated or echoed in its expression and allowed to resonate for others.  

            To test these ideas, my experience with Jasper Johns' painting, Periscope (Hart Crane) (1963) was performed (See Appendices A and F).  The medium of painting was explored as opposed to photography specifically because a painting is a "selective interpretation" while a photograph is a "selective transparency" (Sontag 6).  A photograph belongs to its subject.  It is a trace of the real, while a painting is an "interpretation of the real" (Berger, About Looking 54).  A painting is an artist's interpretation of what s/he has seen.  This theme of interpretation was echoed by the idea that the viewers of a painting perform the painting through their interpretations of what they see.  Another parallel to be drawn was that this performance was based on interpretations of Periscope (Hart Crane).  And these performed interpretations were open to interpretations themselves.  Again, the theme of interpretation was echoed as the viewers of this performance interpreted it. 

            An irony in this study lies in the fact that throughout Periscope (Hart Crane) was viewed mostly through photographs of it.  Also, the audience of the performance only saw photographed and projected images of Periscope (Hart Crane).  These photographs subvert the "uniqueness of the [painted] image" as it is reproduced (Berger, Ways of Seeing 19).  Viewers no longer must travel to see the painting; the painting travels to them through photographs of it (20).  As a result, the possible meanings of the painted image multiply and fragment (19).  In a painting's travels, as it were, meaning is diversified depending on the context(s) in which it is viewed (20).  There is a contextual difference between viewing a painting in a museum and viewing it in a book in your room that affects the viewer's interpretations of the painting.  Also, photographs of a painting do distort the painting somewhat.  A photograph does not completely capture the texture, subtle color and depth of a painting, which affects the interpretations of it. 

            So, the uniqueness of the Periscope (Hart Crane) now lies in it being the original of a reproduction.  Viewers of the performance had seen several images of the painting, but they still had not seen the painting itself.  The audience of this performance was interpreting what they saw.  Of course, they could go to the National Museum of American Art in Washington, DC and see for themselves what the projections and photographs shown during the performance lacked (20).  Johns' painting is an interpretation that was interpreted again and again. 

            As an artist, Jasper Johns seems an ideal subject because his works deal with issues of "the complex and ambiguous process of experiencing art" (Sandler 183).  He explores through painting, issues of how a viewer might experience his work.  Also congenial is his interest in the "nature of vision" and how it effects the perception of art (187).  He is not only intrigued by what is seen in his work, but by what is not seen, and in turn, how it is seen.  Johns, like many artists such as Duchamp, Rauschenberg and Warhol, plays with art's boundaries by incorporating everyday objects within his work, questioning definitions of what constitutes art. 

            Unlike the others, Johns makes works that are "made like 'art' and are not real artifacts, although they look as if they could function as such in 'life'" (185).  Johns does not hide the fact that his works are artistic interpretations of real objects.  He "acts on the materials of art . . . to re-create a commonplace object . . . in a virtuoso fashion" (189).  His works are always "beautifully made" (191).  They are both blatantly artistic and referential to art and the art-making process.  A good example is his sculpture, Painted Bronze (1960) (Crichton, Plate 68).  It is an intricate work of painted bronze that looks like a Savarin Coffee tin with paint brushes in it.  Like Painted Bronze, Johns' works are about "the 'language' of art," questioning what a painting or sculpture, "is, or might be, or has been said to be" (Sandler 193).

            Periscope (Hart Crane), as a painting, deals with issues of a painting's expression.  It continues in Johns' tradition of including in his works the words for colors.  In Periscope (Hart Crane), RED is painted in brown and red, YELLOW is mostly painted grey, and BLUE is painted in several shades of blue.  These colored words cause a "contradiction between the verbal images and the colored areas" (Sandler 187).  The question that comes to mind is thus:  should the names of colors necessarily call the colors to mind (187)?  In a sense, it becomes possible to read the paintings as compositions of visual poetry (Francis et al. 127).  The words of color and the colors of paint have a "fragmentarily poetic effect" that hints at feelings (127).  Thoughts and feelings are evoked through the layers and textures of the various shades of colors and their names that are written and read in paint.  

            Also noteworthy is the fact that words for colors are included in several other works by Johns: By the Sea, Land's End, and Out the Window, thus multiplying and fragmenting the possible meanings of Periscope (Hart Crane) as it is viewed within the context of these works (Crichton 48).  The titles of these works emphasize problems of perception in making statements about the position of the viewer and/or the viewed work itself, thus placing either the viewer and/or the work (48).   For example, the reference to a periscope in the title of this painting could be seen as placing the viewer in the position of looking at, or through, a periscope to view this work, or the painting itself could be seen to serve as a periscope through which the viewer can look.

            More pointedly than the other works, Periscope (Hart Crane)'s verbal connections are heightened with the reference to a poet and a poem.  The painting's title is drawn from a section of Hart Crane's poem, The Bridge.  The pertinent lines are from part IV, which is entitled "Cape Hatteras:"

                       

                        The captured fume of space foams in our ears-

                        What whisperings of far watches on the main

                        Relapsing into silence, while time clears

                        Our lenses, lifts a focus, resurrects

                        A periscope to glimpse what joys or pain

                        Our eyes can share or answer- then deflects

                        Us, shunting to a labyrinth submersed

                        Where each sees only his dim past reversed . . .

                        (Crane 77). 

Similar to the poem, the painting seems to suggest a "dim past" not "clearly perceived . . . but not completely forgotten"  (Orton 75).  This suggestion is achieved in the painting through the deep shadows of grey in combination with the sharp, stenciled words of color and the poignant hand print touching the canvas.  Periscope (Hart Crane) intriguingly mixes visual and verbal expression.  It is a poetic expression made with paint.  

              The performance of Periscope (Hart Crane) was a mix of "representation and interpretation" (Sayre, Object 18).  In the performance, the painting was not only represented, but interpreted.  Also, the experience of this painting was represented and interpreted.  The nature of experiencing a painting, and how to echo and express it, was explored within and through the performance.  Ideally, the performance expressed my thoughts and ideas in a manner that allowed the audience to experience Periscope (Hart Crane).

 

 

 

 

Definition

 

            By performance, I mean an act that is "interactional in nature and involving symbolic forms and live bodies" (Stern and Henderson 3).  It is an act that involves the interactions between a performer and a text, and an audience and a performer.  The symbolism occurs at the "intersection between text and context."   This is where and how the page is brought to life on the stage through the performed gestures and actions.  The text can be "literary or oral or gestural, but it must be . . . repeatable."  It must be possible to (re)present the text on different occasions.  Context is the "social, political, historical, psychological and aesthetic factors that shape the way we understand the text" (17).  It is the culture in which we, the viewers, are influenced.  A performance is thus positioned within the cultural discourse of its place and time (Auslander 8).  When and where it occurs influences how and what occurs.  The context shapes and limits the possible meanings of a performance that the performers and the audience can interpret.  

             Issues of text and context led to thinking of a performance as an event that lives in the present, in the here and now.  A performance cannot be reproduced; it can be repeated, but then it is a different production (Phelan, Unmarked 146).  Each production is a (re)presentation of the script of the performance.  Monroe Beardsley uses the phrase, "presentation of an object" to define the differences between performances of the same text (44).  Each performance, or presentation of a script, is different from the last, each affected by the present time and place.  Each performance of a text is filled with the potential of the present.  It is happening in the here and now.  It is a presence "imbued in performance" through the knowledge that "it will occur this way only this time" (Heuvel 12). 

             In the performative viewing of a painting, more than one type of presence exists.  There is the enduring presence of the painting itself, and there is "the series of presents which constitutes whatever 'present' meaning the painting holds" for the viewers (Sayre, Object 19).  In other words, the painted image exists and endures along with the current meaning(s) found in the viewers' responses, whether detailed or fleeting, which create and sustain a process of presents.  Also, there is a presence found in the photographs of the original painting itself.  The experience of multiple presents with Periscope (Hart Crane) was represented, interpreted and echoed within the multiple presents of a performance.    

            A performance is also metonymic, an "additive and associative" process that works on "contiguity and displacement" (Phelan 150).   To borrow Peggy Phelan's example, "'The kettle is boiling' is a statement that assumes water is contiguous with the kettle.  The point is not that the kettle is like water," as in a metaphor, "but that the kettle is boiling because the water inside the kettle is" boiling (150).  Performance is metonymic in the sense that a performance echoes the text from which it springs forth and echoes the process of performing itself.  A performance simultaneously represents the text on stage and itself as well.  This idea is analogous to Sayre's example that "the spoken breath is identical with the event that it describes because it is the event" (Object 16).  In the process of performing, both text and performance are (re)presented. 

            In the performative viewing of a painting several levels of metonymy can be identified.   First, metonymy in performance itself exists as described above.  Second, metonymy occurs in the performative viewing, which "involves the active role [of] the audience... in creating the emergent meanings" of the painting (Stern and Henderson 406).  The viewers reinterpret a painting within each experience they have with it.  Third, the viewers become aware of this present interpretation to the painting, becoming "spectators of their own performances, becoming a kind of performer" (Phelan 161).  The viewers become introspectively aware of their response(s) to the painting.  In this awareness, the performing viewers are engaging their present experience of the painting within their collected experience(s) of it (Sayre, "Performance" 103).  The viewers are simultaneously representing the painting in their performative viewing as well as representing their interpretation of it.  Fourth, a performance of this viewing experience would be additive and associative to the performative act of viewing.  The experience of viewing a painting would be metonymically (re)presented and (re)experienced in a performance.

 

 

Methodology

 

             I explored the nature of experiencing Jasper Johns' Periscope (Hart Crane) through the medium of performance (See Appendix F).  The process of staging this performance started with the construction of a script based on my collected and recorded experiences with Periscope (Hart Crane).  I compiled these experiences into a script in the form of an autobiographical account or "intimate critique" (Freedman, Frey and Zauhar 3).  My experiences not only served as the base for this script, but they were also interpreted and questioned within it.  In compiling this script, a "creative urge originating" in myself was being heeded (Kleinau and McHughes 138).  The cluster of texts became components of the compiled script and were shaped through my direction. 

            Using the collected texts to create a new text, I compiled in the manner of a collage, which takes fragments from texts and joins them together to form a new text (139).  The original texts were now "subservient to [the] new compositional arrangement" of the script (139).  This newly created text was metonymic itself as it incorporated and echoed the component texts within itself.  In being a compiled collage, the script represented and echoed the multiplicity of possible interpretations found in the performance and in the painting. 

            This script was compiled from ideas, language, and images drawn from the following: other critics and theorists on the link between performance and painting; discussion by Jasper Johns about Periscope (Hart Crane) and painting in general; parts of this thesis; papers written about this painting along with professors' comments on them; my poem, "One To 3," that addresses this painting along with John Cage's piece, "Music for Amplified Toy Pianos," and John Ashbery's poem, "If the Birds Knew"; the description written when I first saw this painting in the National Museum of American Art in Washington, DC; the notes taken in classes and in research on the painting; critical theories read that discuss issues of painting, art, performance, perception and expression; analytical descriptions of this painting; conversations about it; the music that corresponds to my moods with this painting; other works of art by Jasper Johns; and my own paintings  (See Appendices D and E).  

            Like Periscope (Hart Crane), this performance was a site in which to explore a myriad of ideas and images (Strine, Long and HopKins 186).  It was similar to the category of performance that Long labels "arguing" (Long, "Performance as Doing" 26).  In this performance, there was an ongoing argument occurring within the script.  I was commenting on, judging, and critiquing the various sources that had touched on the nature of this experience (26).   It was a performance within which theory and criticism were demonstrated and questioned.  The voices in the script evaluated one another.  Within this performance, I was supporting and subverting my experience of Periscope (Hart Crane) as well as the nature of this experience.

 

 

Script and Staging

 

            In working with the texts mentioned above, five voices seemed identifiable:  Player, Artist, Critic, Docent and Student.  The Player's voice is playful and disruptive; s/he is enjoying and emphasizing the ambiguity found in looking at paintings.  The Artist is positioned as a creator who wonders how her or his paintings will be viewed by an audience.  S/he is philosophizing through paint.  The Critic's voice comes from academia.  Attempting to theorize, s/he tries to analyze, codify and control the experience of viewing painting and its expression.  The Docent is a guide, explaining for the audience.  S/he wants to open up the experience to the audience by helping them understand.  The Student represents the voice of the audience, asking questions about the performance and its meaning.  S/he wants to understand the experience of viewing a painting and how to express it.  These five voices are accompanied by a narrative video which shows sections of Periscope (Hart Crane) and other works by Johns.  In it, a narrator explains the reasoning behind the performance itself.  In fact, parts of this chapter are quoted in the video, explaining why this performance was used to explore, echo and express Periscope (Hart Crane). 

            A sensorium of experiences occurred during the performance:  the smell of paint, the sounds of music and video, the chance to touch and paint on canvas, the sights of slides, video and paintings, the movements of the cast and the audience.  The variety of actions, sounds and sights opened the space to an absorbing, kaleidoscopic atmosphere.  The audience was seated in the middle of this sensorious room including them within the performance.  They were encouraged to act by exploring the room, using the paint supplies and/or reading the books.  Also, by being physically in the middle of the performance, the audience became a part of the performance.  They were viewing performers, similar to the viewers of a painting, who are viewing performers as well. 

            This effect was heightened by the multiple images of Periscope (Hart Crane).  Images of the painting were projected on all four walls by several slide projectors and a video projector.  The audience walked into these images as they entered the room, echoing how a viewer enters a painting when s/he views it.  The audience and cast were surrounded by the painting through the image(s).  Concurrently, their shadows were cast within and about the projected images.  They visually became a part of the image of Periscope (Hart Crane). 

            After refining, rehearsing and performing the script, I reflected on the experience of this study.  Did the performance engage the audience, inviting them to explore the ideas of performance and painting?  Was the experience made accessible to them through this performance?  What did I learn?  Did it help me to make sense of this experience?  Did it open up a space in which I could express the performative viewing of painting?  Did it represent and echo the multiplicity of the affair of viewing painting?  Has this performance expressed the experience of painting in such a way that allowed me and the audience to re-experience Jasper Johns' Periscope (Hart Crane)?  And, ultimately, was performance an effective means of expressing, exploring and evoking the nature of experiencing painting? 

            For exploring these issues, I relied on a journal kept throughout this study, opinions, ideas and input gathered from the cast and my thesis committee, and interviews with the audience members.

 

 

Related Literature

 

            Articles and studies dealing specifically with the interaction of performance and painting fall into three groups:  1) studies that treat paintings as performative; 2) studies of performances that include painting; and 3) studies that discuss the performance of painting.   

            The first group consists of only a few items, and they argue in one way or another that paintings can be regarded as performative.  In his essay, "Hogarth's Painting 'The Beggar's Opera':  Cast and Audience at the First Night," John Walker discusses the performative effects of having six different versions of this painting.  Hogarth painted the performance of "The Beggar's Opera" six times, and in each version the cast is the same but the audience is different.  The viewer is seeing a different performance of the play in each painting, a difference reflected again in the variety of viewers of the paintings. 

            Roni Feinstein deals with similar issues in her dissertation about Robert Rauschenberg's works.  She considers Rauschenberg's use of multimedia in his work and how he builds his paintings together from a variety of sources.  His paintings, she states,  are productions that reflect Rauschenberg's earlier performance works.  Victor H. Mair also describes a performative use of painting in his book, Painting and Performance.  Stories are told through painted pictures in the Chinese tradition of Picture-Storytelling.  In essence it is a performative recitation:  instead of words, the painted pictures are used to tell the story.

            The second group of studies focuses on performances that include paintings.  Several dissertations treat performances that include paintings.  Ellen Zweig discusses the happenings of the seventies that were intermedia events combining music and painting in a performance.  Similarly, Luiz Galizia deals with the theater developed by Robert Wilson, who combined music, painting and architecture in performance.  Jon Kay, relating this rise of performance art to the plastic arts of painting, sculpture and architecture, states that artists realized they could explore the other arts through performance in ways that allowed them to mix media.  Catherine Schieve's dissertation puts these ideas into practice, composing a musical score with paint.  It was not only a work to be heard, but to be seen.

            In  "Between Art and Criticism," Stephen Melville applies these issues in his discussion of Laurie Anderson's performance work, United States.  He describes how she presents visual images defined as neither criticism nor painting, but in the context of Anderson's work, they are performative (Melville 34).  He quotes Anderson on her efforts to make the distinction between art and ideas, because she believes "ideas have a direct line to the brain", while "art sneaks in through the senses" (38).  Melville asserts that the success of her work is in her failure to make this distinction.  Instead, he claims that her achievement comes from her ability to blend art and ideas in performance.

            This performative blending appears in Charlotte MacArthur's discussion of how the performer's ability to develop characters is analogous to an artist painting a portrait.  In their performance, the performer develops or "paints" a portrait of the character they are portraying.  It is a portrait through portrayal.  Judith Hamera discusses how the performer can also "paint" a self-portrait through a performance.   Through both form and content, a performer is able to present a self-portrait that represents how they have come to where they are (Hamera, "On Reading..." 239).  Hamera emphasizes that in a performance, a performer is free to articulate and represent the "superimposition of themselves on the material" (240).  In performance, s/he can "paint" a picture of themselves over and through the script.

            The third group of studies treats the process of performing painting, expressing painting through performance.  Henry Sayre, in Object of Performance, describes paintings as being either performative or not.  The difference lies between paintings that evoke the undecidability of the viewer(s) and paintings that merely rest in their own indeterminacy.  David Salle's painting, His Brain, Sayre claims, is not performative because it is only filled with its own indeterminacies.  The painting is "assimilative, not disseminative;" it is a "closed, finished, and contained work [that] cannot be altered (25).  He then cites Eric Fischl's Bad Boy as an example of a performative painting that invites the undecidable interpretations of the audience.  The painting is "theatrical and performative," encouraging the audience to add to the narrative of the painting (26).  Sayre locates the possibility of the performance of paintings within the characteristics of the painting itself.

            In Unmarked, Peggy Phelan writes that painting is increasingly drawn toward performance.  To explain her claim, Phelan describes two works by Sophie Calle, both of which feature Calle interviewing visitors and guards at a museum, asking them to describe paintings that were missing from the collection either from theft or loan.  She then transcribed these descriptions and hung them in place of the paintings.  Calle's works, Phelan argues, suggest that the presence of the descriptions of the paintings "supplement (add to, defer and displace) the [absent] paintings" (147).  Calle is gesturing toward a notion of an interactive exchange between the paintings and the viewers (146). 

            The descriptions of the paintings performatively represent and subvert the need for the absent paintings (147).  They help restage and remember the absent paintings, keeping them alive in the present by the performance of the viewer's descriptions and memories (147).  Phelan segues into the idea that if Calle "asked the same people over and over about the same painting, each time they would describe a slightly different painting . . . demonstrating the performative quality of . . . seeing" (147).  The performance of the painting would be reproduced with each different description.

            Kristin Valentine discusses the combination of painting and poetry in performance in her article on the Pre-Raphaelite Paradigm.  She explains how the Pre-Raphaelite artists looked at "painting as mute poetry and poetry as speaking pictures" (98).  The artists used color in both poetry and painting in an attempt to create "a sense of freshness and vitality."  Valentine asserts that a theatre production that presents a meeting point between painting and poetry would successfully fulfill the Pre-Raphaelite's intentions (103).  She concludes that theatre may be used to interpret arts, such as painting and poetry, that have "concordant aesthetic bases" (108).

            Timothy Cage has also engaged performance and painting in his thesis and in two articles.  Throughout, Cage is looking at the link between selected ekphrastic poems, poems evoked by art, and their related paintings through a performative lens.  In his thesis, he develops a process to judge whether an audience's enjoyment and understanding of the two related arts were increased when combined in performance.  Cage, like Valentine, is using performance to explore the links between verbal and visual images.

            Cage continues his exploration in an article written with Lawrence Rosenfeld.  They state that ekphrastic poems describe what the eye sees in the poem, enabling the viewer to see the painting more fully (Cage and Rosenfeld 200).  Both poems and paintings, Cage and Rosenfeld claim, are extended in performance.  "The performance of ekphrastic poetry in combination with the viewing of the appropriate paintings," is said by Cage and Rosenfeld, "to increase both the clarity of the two art forms and an appreciation of the experience" (205). 

            Cage and Beverly Whitaker Long have since compiled a bibliography of ekphrastic poems and their related paintings.  In the preface to this bibliography, they discuss the relationship or union between the verbal and the visual.  For them, ekphrasis encompasses and articulates the interactions between "painter and image, viewer and image evoked in paint, poet and image, viewer and image evoked in poetry, and among viewer, poem and painting" (Long and Cage 287).  They are using a performance of ekphrastic poems and their paintings to articulate and enact these links.

            My proposed study has a slightly different focus than most of the work discussed above.  The first group of studies deals with painting's performative capacity, the second group with performances that included painting, and the third group with the actual performance of painting.  The emphasis of this study is on expressing the experience of viewing a painting through performance.  My exploration of performance and painting uses performance to express the affair with painting, an affair that encompasses performance, criticism, theories, professors, audiences and myself.  While there are differences, there are also similarities to the related studies.  Like the first group, the performative characteristics of a painting turned my thoughts about painting toward performance.  The issues dealt with in the second group parallel my ideas on how paintings could be used within performances.  Both this study and the third group focus on expressing painting through performance.       

            Having been exposed to this variety of studies within the space of performance and painting only strengthened the focus of my study.  I was more aware of what I wanted to accomplish and I believed even more strongly that it was through a performance that I would best be able to represent, echo and express the indeterminate and kaleidoscopic nature of the experience of viewing a painting through the expression of the experience of Jasper Johns' painting, Periscope (Hart Crane).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Chapter Two

The Process of Performing a Painting:

Planning and Rehearsal

 

 

            This chapter contains a narrative description of the process of preparing for the performance event.  In this description, sometimes anecdotal, selected performance choices are reported, focusing on the ones that crucially shaped the performance.  I begin with the compilation of the script and follow through the rehearsals to the production event.

 

 

Scripting

 

            The process for this performance began with the writing of the script.  Over a hundred pages of texts served as the basis from which script was drawn.  Originally, the script was about 40-45 pages long and it seemed to contain at least ten voices.  After many drafts, it was trimmed down to twenty odd pages with five different voices emerging.  I believed the characters were ready to be voiced aloud.  Alone, I had read it aloud several times, and it felt like it was time for different voices to enliven it.

            In this stage of script development, numerous people were invited to participate over the course of several readings.  Many voices reading the lines opened up many nuances within the script.  Over the course of these readings, around fifteen people participated and most read several times and assumed several voices.  It is difficult to describe the revelation of hearing other voices read the script.  The script  immediately changed into this new beast with previously unnoticed problems and potential.  The different vocalizations of the words opened


 up new possibilities in the meanings of the lines, reminding me that a text on the page is indeed different on the stage (Reinelt and Roach 5).  

            The discoveries made during this part of the process greatly improved the quality of the script and subsequently that of the final production.  During these readings, the problems with the script that became most apparent were its wordiness and lack of balance.  Technical sections of dialogue that were over a paragraph long, when read aloud, were flat and disrupted the flow of the reading.  Also, places in the script in which one character did not have a line for several pages, led to an imbalance in the point of views portrayed by the characters. 

            The wordiness of the script needed to be pared down to quicken the pace and smooth out the flow, and the distribution of lines needed to be balanced in order to give each point of view equal consideration.  One solution to the problem of wordiness was the addition of a video which contained some of the technical sections of dialogue and was played before, during and after the show (See Appendix E).  This helped reduce the loss of lines and added another voice to the script and another dynamic to the performance.  Even so, it was highly fragmented, dense, and complex, and an emphasis was placed on making it even more polished and precise.  Lines were constantly rewritten and ideas were paraphrased to create a more fluent script.

            Another problem of the script was related to characterization.  The lines were often rewritten with an eye to individualizing what the characters said, thus giving them more distinct voices.  Also, it was also obvious from the very first readings that the words in the script were suggestive of movement which could be represented physically.  The challenge was to take the rhythm of the words and physically echo and evoke them on the stage.

            This process of reading the script with a group led me to appreciate more fully the expressive dimensions and potential of performance.  Through performance, the experience of a painting could not only be echoed, but shaped as well.  My experience of the Jasper Johns' Periscope (Hart Crane) grew through the process of preparing for the performance.  Various connotations continued to emerge as different people read the script, I was able to see my ideas as if they were different from themselves ( Pollock, "Telling the Told" 7).  The comments from the readers shaped my experience and, in turn, my experience of the painting shaped theirs.  The medium of performance was very useful in conveying thoughts and feelings in a reciprocal manner. The inherent give and take with everyone sharing and learning from each other was the process itself.  My own experience of Periscope (Hart Crane) increased ten fold when rehearsals for the performance began.

 

 

Rehearsals

 

            The process of rehearsals was partly shaped by a variety of demands from outside the performance.  First, there was the matter of finding a space.  I felt that it was extremely important to have the right room in which to hold this performance, because for me, the room served as a catalyst for making things happen, it was more than space in which things happen.  There were many options; a gallery in the University's Museum, the Cabaret or the Great Hall in the Student Union, the performance space in the Communication Studies building, or the Critique Room in the Art Center.  My first choice would have been the museum in order to have the audience watch a performance about looking at painting and also have the opportunity to look at paintings both before and after the performance.  A space in the museum was not available because of conflicting schedules and agendas of the museum. 

            The two spaces in the Student Union were both awkward for different reasons.  The Cabaret had policy that disallowed moving the seating, so it would not be possible to place the audience in the center of the room.  The Great Hall was so large and cavernous that voices  would get lost without microphones.  The performance space of the Communication Studies department would have been extremely convenient, but lacked light colored walls that were desirable for multiple slide projections.  So, almost by default, the Critique Room became the space for this performance.  It was a narrow room that limited staging, but it was an empty room with bare white walls.  Also, it was in the Hanes Art Center, so the audience would be walking by art studios as they entered and left the performance.  

            Casting led to more challenges.  This performance occurred over the summer of 1995 and not many people were around.  The complexity and oddity of the script, together with my own lack of experience in directing, seemed to demand a skilled group of performers.  As a result of these considerations, the cast for this performance was recruited more than auditioned.  The cast changed during the readings of the script.  Two of the cast members committed in the early readings, another toward the end.  The final two members agreed to participate at the first rehearsal and only after much negotiating for a short rehearsal schedule to fit their heavy time demands.  This tight rehearsal schedule directly effected several performance choices which will be described later.   

            Finally, there were technical matters--props, lights and setting.  Through the Communication Studies and Art departments and my own resources, I attempted to collect everything desired for the performance.  For the most part this was successful, but not all of the objects were available and/or affordable, so we worked with what was at hand.  For example, if the performance had been in the University Museum, I dreamed of obtaining the original Periscope (Hart Crane)  on loan for the performance.  But the logistical difficulty and the potential cost made slides the obvious choice. 

            The rehearsal process proceeded while issues of space, cast and set pieces were still being settled.  To start each rehearsal, the cast improvised dialogue about paintings that were brought into the rehearsals.  For example, the cast would ad-lib a discussion of what they saw in Periscope (Hart Crane) in a manner they believed their characters would adopt.  Another activity that occurred regularly was to have the cast paint, to let them create a painting and then discuss each other's works in the manner of their characters.  By creating a painting and then talking about it, they were experiencing painting in a manner similar to mine of Johns.  Both of these activities allowed the cast to actually perform analogies to the script.  They were performing interpretative viewings.  When the cast developed their characters' auto-biographies, it focused their characters and also revealed the dynamics between the characters in a new light for me.  The distinctions between the characters became even sharper now that the cast was performing the characters' responses to each other. 

            New possibilities opened up when the cast read the script in the room in which it was to be performed.  Here, when I sat in the middle of the room and the characters were speaking over and around me, I felt as if I were inside a verbal tennis match. To maximize this discursive effect, blocking aimed to keep the cast spread out over the room, and not bunched together.  Another effect that we strove for was to have an atmosphere of multiple stimuli in the performance space.  The characters moved around and through the audience as they interacted with each other.  The challenge was to direct and design this potential over load so that it was not confusing and frustrating, but fun and stimulating.  I wanted the performance to be alternately disjointed and linear, destabilized and stable.

            The intricacies of the script developed into a complex performance and this greatly slowed down the rehearsal schedule as we constantly fell behind.  I came to realize that the quality of the performance increased with slow rehearsals.  So, I opted for gaining and maintaining quality with a slowed pace and possibly the loss of sections of the script.  The rehearsal schedule was under the tensive realities of time pressure and quality control. 

            Throughout the rehearsals, the structure of the performance changed steadily through my own ideas and those of the cast and visitors, including committee members.  For example, several of the cast members pointed out that the Student was somewhat analogous to Alice in Wonderland in that he is within an art wonderland in which the rest of the cast is trying to win his and the audience's attention.  Another stated that the characters essentially represented points of view, and a visitor noted that these points of view could be seen as notes played within the performance in relation with other notes, clashing and blending, giving the performance a rhythm.

            Major changes continued, even in the final week of rehearsal.  It was widely felt by the entire cast that the poem in the script had become an island unto itself.  It was a moment that could be beautiful or flat.  By having the cast overlap the lines and echo each other, the poem could be this intricate sonic tapestry, or it could be a garbled bunch of words.  One cast member suggested highlighting the poem through a staging that would emphasize it as a performance within the performance.  The cast could drop their characters for this "performance" and embody the words of the painting while standing in front of projections of the painting.  This "performance" thus enacted the sensuality of the words.

            In the final rehearsals the script still felt too long and repetitive.  The complexity of the script made the memorization of it difficult.  The cast as a whole encouraged me to cut more lines, freeing them to work on highlighting, punctuating and differentiating the lines throughout the script.  A visitor noted that we should emphasize the language around the painting and the painting around the language.  The cast needed to know which lines, metaphorically, were bold, italic or plain text, and this difference should then be clear in the blocking, volume, and pace of the lines.  Similarly, visual punctuation in the dialogue needed clarity--the periods, commas, exclamation points and question marks.  Another visitor emphasized that the cast should know who was talking to whom and why; they should listen to each other and respond verbally and visually.  Another mentioned that the painting, Periscope (Hart Crane) warranted more interaction.  The painting was both the focus and a performer in this event and having the cast look at it would engage themselves with it and engage the audience with it as well.

 

 

Performance Space, Setting, Properties, and Costumes

 

            The space for this performance was set with padded backless benches in the middle of the room in which the audience sat facing outward in both directions (See Appendices B and C).  Paint supplies around in four stations invited the audience to dabble as they pleased, becoming, in effect, a part of the performance.  Also, the piles of books around the room could be browsed by audience members if they wished.  These same books were cited or consulted over the course of this study, so the study itself was present in the performance.  Paintings by the cast and audience members along with the lines of the poems from the performance were hung and interspersed with projections of Periscope (Hart Crane) around the room, giving a museum-gallery-playroom feel to the room.  To the background of various types of music, audience members were welcome to walk around and enjoy the room before and after the performance.  Slide projections of Jasper Johns' Periscope (Hart Crane) appeared on three of the walls throughout the performance.  A video projector focusing on the fourth ran throughout, showing various images of Johns' paintings and adding narration to the proceedings (See Appendix E).

            The room had overhead lighting in the form of fluorescent and track lighting.  Before and after the show the fluorescent lights were on, but during the performance the track lighting served as spots that lit the corners in which the podium, easel and pile were located, and also the center of the room was lit from both sides of the room.

            The cast entered the room as the audience was painting and exploring the room.  In this instance they were not in character, but simply visiting with the audience and watching them paint, thus becoming a viewer of the performing audience.  During the performance, the cast performed as crew, handling all of the technical aspects such as lighting, music and projection.  Also, they occasionally sat with audience when not speaking.  (The script contains directions for the cast members:  "through the audience" and "over the audience."  Through the audience refers to walking across the thruway between the two groups of benches for audience members [See Appendices B and C].  Over the audience refers to the cast saying lines to each other over the heads of audience.) 

            The cast wore similar grey T-shirts that had a white silk screen print of Periscope (Hart Crane), connecting them as cast members and serving a foundation from which costumed details will then illustrate their distinctions.  These distinctions were intensified with each cast member having a base area in the room.  For example, the Critic carried a pointer and wore a suit with his T-shirt.  His base was the corner in which the podium stood.  The Artist wore a smock and carried around art supplies as she painted throughout the performance at her base, the easel.  The Player wore lycra tights and had a trickster's bag from which he pulled various props.  His base was the bench on which he had even more props and toys with which to play.  The Docent wore a black skirt and carried notecards.  The Docent's base was around the center of the room and is shared with the Student who carried a walkman and wore a red ball cap and shorts.  The Director of the performance also wore a matching T-shirt and my base was the director's chair.  Also, the Greeter for the performance event, who wore an outfit that matched the Docent's, passed out programs before the event and encouraged people to explore the room.  The performance began with the Docent clapping to get the audience's and the cast's attention.  The cast responded by positioning themselves at their bases and the Docent then introduced them from their point of views, which illustrated visually for the audience the structure of the interactions among the characters (See Appendix D).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Chapter Three

The Performance Event(s):

Reflections and Conclusions

 

 

            As I reflect on the performance event(s), I think back to the two questions that have guided this study.  1) If the experience of viewing a painting is performative, could it not be expressed performatively?  2) Would a performance of this experience be an effective mode of expression that allows others to experience one's viewing of a painting?  I now realize that my interests and expectations for this study were more complex than they first seemed.  I wanted to express the experience of a painting in a manner that would echo and evoke the beauty I found in that experience.  For this study, a performance and this thesis were the means of expression with which I have struggled.  During this process, the complexity of my goal became apparent.  I was not only interested in making the experience of a painting, specifically my experience of Jasper Johns' painting, Periscope (Hart Crane), resonate for others; I was also intrigued by the possibility of opening up alternative ways to express myself that would serve not only as an analysis of the subject scrutinized, but also resonate interactively the thoughts, ideas and experiences of that subject.  I not only wanted the performance to enable other's to re-experience Periscope (Hart Crane), but for the thesis to do so as well. 

              This chapter contains a description and interpretation of the performance event(s), focusing on selected formative moments realized within the performance(s).  After these moments are addressed, I look at responses from the cast, audience and committee members.  As I reflect on their responses, I discuss how they illustrate the event(s) success and its limits, and look to possible continuations in this study of painting and performance. 

 


 

Performance Event(s)

 

            My goals were realized in the performance(s) during certain moments in several ways:  the pre-show interaction of the audience, the cast and the room, the large and fragmented amount of information of the performance, subversive moments in the script, and attempted realizations of the ideas behind the performance. 

            Before the performance(s), the audience was encouraged by the Greeter and the Director to explore the sensorious room.  They performed and enacted analogies to the performance.  They were active viewers who, when the performance began, then became viewing performers.  The cast entered as themselves and explored the room and the audience.  In contrast to the audience, the cast members were functioning as viewing performers who would soon become performing viewers.  The performance allowed for a process in which both audience and performers played a part (Schmitt 21).  

            The room was an important aspect of the event(s).  Filled with books, paintings, and paint supplies, it was meant to tempt, or seduce, the audience into painting and exploring.  The active position of the viewer(s) was the focus of this study and the performance event(s), and, concordantly, the audience was centered in the space of the performance.  Just as the person who designs a set is not separate from a performance, the audience is an integral part of the event.  This locus was intensified with the audience's physical interactivity throughout the performance.  Their bodies were involved as they twisted and turned, following the movements of sights and sounds.  Engaging the event was not "a passive activity but . . . an act" (Heuvel 148).  The audience's performance was their experience and interpretations of the event(s) (187). 

            The amount of information conveyed during the performance verged on overload even conceding that the audience(s) were actively viewing the performance.  The audience members were not meant to absorb and digest everything that occurred.  The point was not to center their attention on one idea, but to spread ideas about in a seemingly random order.  Both the performance experience and the experience of viewing a painting were fragmented; multiple spaces and a variety of points of view blended and clashed.  This fragmentation was not meant to "deconstruct order, but to investigate the possibilities of new order[s]," allowing for a questioning of the (re)presentation itself (Heuvel 182).

            The fragmentation of the performance was aided by several moments that subverted a linear reading of the event as well as acknowledged and illustrated the validity of numerous and diverse points of view.  In this manner, no one point of view within the event was highlighted or proposed over another and the audience was "invited to find meanings in the collisions and collusions between" the multiple points of view (Heuvel 102).  For instance, when theories about the different possible interpretations of the hand in Periscope (Hart Crane) were discussed, the pace of the dialogue reached a crescendo with the Student deflating the theories by asking if it could just be a hand.  This moment showed one of the characters subverting the statement(s) of other character(s), rupturing one another's point of view and developing indeterminacy in the information presented through the performance (18).

            Another subversive moment was constructed as the Critic and Docent appeared to flip through several different slides of other works by Johns, while in reality they were viewing a slide of Periscope (Hart Crane) repeatedly and reacting to this same slide as if it were different slides of different paintings.  This moment contradicted the audience's possible desire to see other works by Johns, but more than that, it was meant to subvert the performance itself.  Having a character seem to err called "into question the verifiability" of their statements (Heuvel 121).  It was a moment of apparent falsity in the performance which could have caused the audience to doubt the characters, potentially causing them to question all of the information within the performance, thereby undermining it.  Another subversion occurred when the Artist declared that it was better to express your ideas about art through the medium itself (i.e. by painting).  This moment not only discounted the other characters' statements, but  subverted all verbalizations of the visual.  Painting was honored as an effective medium for exploring itself at the expense of verbal forms of communication; most significantly, the cited books in the room and the text of the performance itself.

            Several attempts to realize the concepts behind the performance were juxtaposed along with the intended subversion of the moments described above.  For instance, both the first and second rendering of the descriptive poem about Periscope (Hart Crane) embodied and evoked the painting.  The cast read the first poem from scripts as they stood within the projections of the painting with the Student in the center of the room.  The scripts signaled this poem as a performance within the performance which was supported with the cast dropping their characters and embodying the painting through the words of the poem and their positions within the projections. 

            The scripts also illustrated visually the differences between a text on the page and on the stage.  "The physical presence of the scripts . . . destroy[ed] the illusion that the text [had] disappeared" within the performance (Heuvel 126).  The script of the poem was present, but it was read aloud in a manner that could not be reproduced in a reading by oneself.  The lines of the poem were overlapped and echoed, forming a layered and textured sonic poem.  The first poem was then echoed in the second which was similar to and different from the first, paraphrasing its overlapping and echoing lines.  The second poem was also a physical echo of the first poem; its tone was quieter, no scripts were involved, and the room was pitch black.

            Following the second poem, only the slide projectors were turned back on and the cast exited the room, leaving the audience in a darkened room surrounded by images of Periscope (Hart Crane).  In effect, the painting took the curtain call, suggesting that it engendered the engagement of the ideas, images, cast, and audience.  This moment was then supported with the cast re-entering the room as themselves again, turning on the overhead fluorescent lights and immediately mixing with the audience instead of taking a bow.  The end of the show was meant to be an echo of the beginning with cast and audience joined together, mingling as before.  Both audience and cast were literally and figuratively viewing performers of Periscope (Hart Crane).

 

Responses

 

            After the performances, I investigated several kinds of responses:  audience's immediate reactions voiced to the cast after the performances, audience's opinions collected through interviews, cast's immediate post-performance responses and reaction papers, and committee's responses to the performances.  After each performance, the audience mingled in the room with the cast, discussing different moments or aspects of the performance.  Their immediate responses were positive and negative critiques of the event.  Follow up interviews were conducted to further explore the audience's responses to the performance.  Before addressing the interviews, the responses from the cast, audience, and committee will be discussed. 

            The cast's responses ranged from self-criticism to comments about the performance to curiosity about the audience.  Their comments mainly focused on what they felt could have been better.  They talked of lines flubbed, mistakes made and possible improvements.  They were hyper-critical of their individual performances and curious about the audience's responses to the event.  The performance's focus on the audience seemed to draw their attention to the audience as well.  Their comments sometimes led to rehearsals before the next evening's performance.  For instance, after the first evening, the cast expressed discomfort in standing half in the projections during the reading of the first poem.  One member said he felt out of position because it was difficult to know if he was half way in the image with the light in his eyes.  Another worried that they looked out of position.  Together, we ran the scene both ways and decided to have them stand fully in the images for the following performances.  Through the rehearsal process, we were shaping our experience with the painting. 

            Another cast member noticed that the Docent and the Greeter looked similar.  We discussed how the two were also connected since they both were in control of the performance, albeit in different capacities.  The Greeter figuratively and literally controlled the performance  from the outside, passing out programs to those she admitted into the room.  The Docent, on the other hand, commanded the performance from within, directing the other characters and moderating their points of view.  We decided to further emphasize this connection visually, having them wear identical outfits for the rest of the events.  Together, we were constructing visual statements to support the ideas in the script. 

            The entire cast noticed and appreciated that the room was filling up with the audience's pre-show paintings.  We discussed how with each new performance the audience(s) became more and more a physical presence in the performance(s).  We began to think of the audience members as fellow collaborators.  We were seeing them as the focus of our performance.  For us, the paintings showed that the audience actively contributed to the performance, leaving their mark as they enacted analogies to the performance. 

            The cast also wrote short response papers, reflecting on the experience of the performance, the painting, and the growth from their initial impressions to their reminiscences.  Their responses dealt with the process of the performance from within.  In discussing Periscope (Hart Crane), one cast member commented that talking about paintings, and actually painting in the rehearsals, was an enactment of what the performance was about.  Another noted that the essence of the Periscope (Hart Crane) became the performance, she made more sense out of the painting through the performance.  For the cast, the process of the performance allowed for an exploration of the painting.

            In discussing the experience of the performance, one cast member noted that the technical script was frustrating and difficult to memorize because it seemed the lines did not logically follow one and another.  For her, there seemed no reason for interaction or movement.  Another noticed that the rehearsal process took the seemingly random arrangement of words in the script and formed them into a non-linear dialogue between people with different points of view.  The overload of information in the script caused difficulties during rehearsal with memorization and with motivation for speaking and moving.  Among other things, the fragmentation and multiplicity of the performance led to a fragmented rehearsal process.

            Thinking about the performance event(s), one cast member could not help but wonder how the audience was going to respond to this dense and odd event.  Another noted that this was an event that was at its best with an audience since most of the lines were played to the audience, he felt flat without one present.  Also, one member enjoyed how the beginning of the performance was a chance for her to be an audience of the audience.  Another noted that the whole event led her to think about art and what a viewer and a performer make of it.  For the cast, the idea of an active audience became a concept with which they addressed the performance event(s).  Their comments showed them to be aware that they were an active part in the process of shaping this performance.

            The responses from the audience revolved from the large amount of information conveyed during the performance to ideas concerning painting, performance and perspective.  The most repeated response dealt with the sensory and informational overload within the performance.  One woman said so much was going on that she felt mentally dizzy, and she was twisting and turning around so much that she became physically dizzy as well.   Another woman said she was going home and digest all of the information.  Whether negative or positive, the sensation of a lot information was the general response to the performance events.    

             Beyond this informational overload, differences in the audience's comments were apparent during these post-performance conversations.  For example, audience members with a background in Art talked mainly about the painting itself and the different theories of looking at it, while those from Communication Studies focused on how the performance event opened up the painting.  The audience members responded to the event from their own interests and areas of study, shaping their experience of the performance and the painting.  For instance, an art studio graduate student discussed with me the different visual theories with which he agreed, while a performance studies graduate student commented on the complexity of the language and its effect on the rehearsal process.  The audience's interests in gaining more information was similarly divided in focus as well.  Some expressed interest in reading about Johns, and going to Washington, DC to see Periscope (Hart Crane), while others desired to see the performance again to catch what they missed the first time.   

            Being able to paint drew numerous comments from audience members.  One man felt strongly that everyone should paint before the performance so that they become a part of it.  Another appreciated how the act of painting allowed her to be a part of the performance, contributing to the event.  One woman noted that the act of painting made the audience the focal point of the event.  Others disagreed, one woman talked of how she participated more fully by not painting, but by actively listening and looking.  The audience members actively engaged themselves with the performance and were aware of their actions, becoming "spectators of their own performance[s]" (Phelan 161).

            Several audience members commented that having the different points of view equally represented in the performance validated different perspectives in general.  One woman stated that the performance validated her position and ideas, allowing her to simply enjoy looking at the painting.  Another noted that the performance made her more comfortable to approach a painting while not knowing all the theories and ideas involved.  Along these lines, one man felt validated in not understanding everything about the performance or the painting, because he did understand parts of it, and his confusion was part of his comprehension.  The indeterminacy of the script validated a multiplicity of view points for audience members.

            Along with these post-performance comments, I also conversed with my committee members.  One enjoyed the performance and was curious to see it addressed within the thesis so as to have the theory within the performance event(s) further developed.  The effect of the performance for another member was one of collage, in which the elements cooperated and competed, creating a sense of not only being inside a painting, but inside the process of painting as well.  Another noted the importance of the performances' realization of my goal, but recognized that it could not have worked for every audience member.  Their comments led me to think of the process of this study and how the multiplicity of the performance was echoed in the multiple responses of those involved.

            Their comments also fanned my curiosity to hear, and deal with, more elaborate responses from the audience members, which led to holding interviews.  Selected members of the audience were asked six questions, one of several parts, about a week after the performances.  Summaries of their responses follow.

            1)  What do you think about Jasper Johns' painting, Periscope (Hart Crane)?

                        Some loved, others hated Periscope (Hart Crane).  One woman found it thought            provoking; its various levels of meaning made it more engaging for her.  One man said he wanted to see more color.  Another just did not understand it and thought it was   ugly.  Several desired to see the original, especially one woman who noted that all the       projections were slightly different.  One man thought it was abstract and yet saw parts    of it related in literal ways.  Another commented that the parts of the painting made the       whole and the whole was made of the parts.  The comments about the painting basically          formed a pro to con continuum.

            2)  For you, what is art?

                        In speaking about art, most respondents related to it as a combination of             aesthetics and ideas.  Several spoke of art as a form of creative expression.  One man     specified art as a creative expression of the imagination in visual terms with aesthetic             qualities dependent on the medium.  Another replied more generally in saying that art is    anything that is pleasing.  One woman explicitly stated that art cannot be just anything,          but is a purposeful process of creation.  This notion was seconded by another who said         the creative purpose of art is communication.  A man echoed the Artist in saying that art            is everything and anything.  A woman took this even further stating that art can be   anything as long as it is treated as if it is art.  She believed that how the object is     addressed is more important than the object itself.  The discussion of a process of art   echoed the process of the performance.

            3)  Having seen the performance, do you remember a moment, or an aspect, that was             particularly interesting?  Confusing?  Frustrating?  Dull?  Fun?

                        Several people were most interested when the performance covered theories             with which they were familiar.  The first poem was also interesting to people, many             said it was emotionally moving.  Others mentioned the dialogue and the way the lines     bounced all over the room.  The bouncing dialogue confused others.  One man             responded that he always felt as if he had just missed something important.  Another             was confused by the fast tempo of the event that frustrated attempts to understand the       information.  One woman felt that talk was a waste of time and art seemed somewhat of         a superfluous concept.  Not one of the respondents was bored.  Most noted that too             much going on to become bored.  On the other hand, many enjoyed the cast, the script,   the poem and being able to paint.  One woman noted that the whole interactive feel of         the event was fun.  The audience responded to the indeterminate information overload           by engaging the performance in moments that dealt with their interest(s). 

            4)  After the performance, who were you with, and what did you talk about?

                        After the performance most of the respondents were with their friends, and they     discussed the performance in varying contexts.  One woman discussed art in relation to        literature and life.  Another noted that the performance had challenged her notions on       art.  One man noted that the creative process of painting was represented by the process      of the event.  Another saw the process of viewing a painting in the process of the       performance.  And several added how both the performance and the painting could             mean different things for different people.  The audience members not only made             connections between the process of painting and of performance, but also used the idea      of process to explore and validate multiple meanings. 

            5)  How would you describe the performance to someone who hasn't seen it?

                        In attempting to describe the performance event most noted the representation of          different points of view on experiencing art, including their own.  One woman said it       was a bombardment and juxtaposition of ideas about looking at and performing      painting.  This juxtaposition led one man to note the potential of many different           meanings for the audience to draw from the event.  Another woman described ideas that     were delivered at a fast pace and in a playful manner.  Being able to paint made one            woman more aware of her performance of the painting and the performative nature of art in general.  The characters were described as representing points of view that      constantly subverted each other and made the performance more open to an audience.         The audience's comments dealt less with the painting itself than with ideas about   painting in general.  The fragmentation of the performance experience enabled them to         explore issues concerning the nature of viewing painting through the experience of             Periscope (Hart Crane).

            6)  If we had the opportunity to rescript and restage this in a month or two, would you      have any suggestions for altering the performance to help improve it?

                        Several of the respondents did not suggest any changes, while others had             many.  One woman adamantly stated that it should be clear that Hart Crane is a poet             whose name is used in the title of the painting.  She also noted that the pace could be             slower to help her understand the ideas better.  One man added that the tempo of the             event could be mixed to highlight points.  Another thought it could be even longer with     an intermission to give the audience a break.  Several people wanted a bigger room, and      one man suggested the walls and ceiling have mirrors on them to aid and further             fragment the viewing process.  One woman emphasized that the medium of             performance should be fully exploited so the audience would be shown theory, instead             of having it explained to them and this would let them figure out the theories for       themselves.  Their comments dealt with the problems and possibilities of the             information overload in the process of the performance.

 

 

 

 

Reflections and Conclusions

 

            In listening to the various comments, I thought of how they expressed my goal for the performance and how they did or did not reflect and echo my intentions.  I believe the performance achieved the goal I had at the beginning of this study:  to enable others to experience Periscope (Hart Crane) and engage in ideas about painting in general.  As mentioned above, my goal has become somewhat more complex over the course of this study.  The audience of the performance was in an interactive position; they were able to engage with the performance on their terms.  Along with the performance, I want this thesis to allow its audience an interactive experience of Periscope (Hart Crane) and the nature of viewing painting.  From this perspective, it is my belief that not only does the thesis not meet this goal, but that the performance does so in a limited capacity.  With this in mind, I will look at the limited success of the performance, my perceived failure of this thesis, and the possible routes I see that address the problems raised here.

             Similar to the experience of viewing a painting, the resonance to the performance event(s) was diverse and both positive and negative.  "The possibility of" this varied resonance "resides in the impossibility of two people having the same experience" of the performance event(s) (Schmitt 10).  In fact, "not only do not all audience members have the same experience at any one performance or at different performances, but an individual who returns will not have the same experience the second time" (11).  I, myself, found new possibilities with each rehearsal and performance (Heuvel 80).  The process of this performance shaped and changed my experience of Periscope (Hart Crane), opening it up in new ways for me.  The performance expressed thoughts in a fragmented and multiple manner that allowed for the audience to interact with its ideas and images.   The responses above show the audience and cast interacting with the ideas and images within the performance, and illustrate an aspect of the performance's success.

            Reflecting on everyone's comments and ideas has been a long and multifaceted learning experience.  For example, in dealing with the performance, I agree with the comments about how the tempo of the performance could be manipulated to help highlight the ideas better.  It would have given the performance a variable rhythm and more clearly separated points.  I was trying not to highlight one idea over another, because I wanted to treat the ideas equally so that there was a validation of all potential views.  I wanted a performance with a "variety of perspectives" with no "authorial point of view" (Schmitt 27).  Even so, I can see the possibility for equal treatment with highlighting in which the highlighting accentuates the indeterminacy.  A variance might also give a rhythm to the rate of the information presented and processed in the performance. 

            The audience's desire for a more varied pace seems to be a solution they offered to the overwhelming, and confusing, amount of information.  Hearing this so often has made me wonder if there was too much information conveyed in too short a time.  Although, the thought of cutting and simplifying the performance makes me worry about losing a fragmented effect.  Also, I was struggling with these various and diverse ideas and images through language, so the large amount of information became somewhat unavoidable (Heuvel 171).  Granted, a lot of ideas are conveyed in the performance but, for me, the point was not for the audience to understand everything, but for them to draw the bits and pieces they could from the event.  Whether it is a painting or a performance being viewed, the fragments are always slightly different from one person to the other.  I wanted this fragmentation represented in the multiplicities of the script and performance.  

            If I did the performance again, I could incorporate the suggestions from cast, audience and committee members to try and improve the presentation of my ideas.  I could polish moments in the performance to further exploit the medium's potential to enact ideas instead of explaining them.  This would allow the audience to actively figure out the ideas for themselves, instead of passively listening to the meanings being explained to them.  Also, mirrors could be incorporated to cast reflections around the room, allowing the audience to see more and less.  They would be able to better see the other side of the room without as much twisting, but they still would not be able to see it all.  The mirrors would be yet another fragmentation and distraction in which to lose, and gain, other parts of the performance. 

            I could also hold the performance in a different room, with a different cast, with an intermission, with more planned involvement from the audience, with a longer run to allow for repeated viewings, and/or with back to back showings for the same audience.  I could better incorporate other mediums of expression within a performance, specifically the medium of academic discourse.  All of the above would be interesting changes to attempt and see if new and/or different responses to the performance occur.  Also, attempting to redo the performance as similarly as possible and seeing what differences arose from the similarities would be interesting as well.  The responses from the audience's of events incorporating these proposed changes could shed new light on the performance.

            Thinking about potential changes, I am drawn into questioning what this study's performance did accomplish.  The performance engaged an audience, allowing them to interact with ideas and images about painting.  It allowed myself and others to experience Periscope (Hart Crane) in a rather unusual manner.  Their responses to it showed them thinking in terms of the process and nature of art, as well as making connections between performance, painting and viewing.  In their responses, I see the success of the performance and its limits.  The same characteristics of a performance that helped this study's performance to work, also limit it.

            This performance was an event that lived in the present as it expressed the presence and present(s) of a painting.  It reached the audience that saw it, but that is its limit.  If you did not get to see the performance, you do not re-experience the painting through it.  Reading the text and viewing the video of this thesis are different media with different discourses that can not substitute for being at the performance.  I realize that the video serves as visual documentation for the reader of the thesis and that the audience's expectations for a performance are different from a video or a thesis, but part or my intention is to echo the experience of the painting and the performance so as to allow the audience a similar level of interactivity.  The performance achieved an interactivity with the audience that the thesis and video do not.  This is not to say that the performance can not be staged again, but then it would be a different production.  Inherently, a performance is positioned within its place and time.  The context of the event(s) will vary slightly, and, consequently, so will the responses to the performance and Periscope (Hart Crane).  The variance of context could be such that it is entirely possible another production of this study's performance would not meet my goals.

            Concurrently, the performance's metonymic traits supported the audience as the locus of the event(s), but only the audiences of the performance, not those of the thesis.  I realize that a thesis is not normally held to this interactive standard, but I am interested in the possibility of a thesis extending the interactivity found in the performance to another audience.  As performing viewers, the audience was the focus of the performance(s) and were aware of their central position, encouraging even more participation from them as they added and associated to the performative act (Phelan 150).  They were able to actively engage and interact with the performance through painting, listening and looking.  Their performance consisted of their experience and interpretations of the event(s) (Heuvel 187).  Positive, negative, detailed or fleeting, those involved performed viewings and drew bits and pieces from the performance that resonated for them. 

             Through this study I have come to more fully appreciate the expressive potential of performance.  I found it opened the experience in new ways for me and allowed for an event that (re)presented and echoed the fragmentation of viewing a painting.  This type of (re)presentation, along with the performance's degree of interactivity, would be difficult to achieve through the reading of a paper or the viewing of a video.  Also, I see a parallel between the experience of performing and the experience of viewing.  The audience's ideas and feelings "partake of the same interactive dynamic between text and performance . . . that determines the content of the" performance(s) (Heuvel 79).  Both experiences involve the viewing performers and/or the performing viewers in interactive, interpretive, and (re)presentative processes.  And yet, the performance was fleeting, and I believe this thesis cannot (re)present it.  For me, that is its failure.  As a permanent record of this study, this thesis is an attempt at academic discourse, with an appended video, that does not, and I believe cannot, meet the goal(s) that the performance(s) did.  Once again, I understand that a thesis is not generally thought of in these terms, but I am decidedly interested in considering the possibilities of this line of thought.  It is not my intention to reduce the media of a video and a thesis to the discourse of a performance, but to look for a discourse that would allow for as much interactivity as a performance.

             I believe that the multimedia of a CD-ROM would allow for a permanent document that would be somewhat equivalent to a performance in its potential to engage the audience and allow them to interact with it.  With a CD-ROM I could create a permanent document about a performance (or any studied subject) that could include images (both moving and still), sound and text.  Granted, the sights and sounds of the performance are included in the video, but, I am interested in how a CD-ROM allows for the audience to interact and enact their own experience.  This is not meant to preclude critical analysis, but to allow for an audience to explore interactively with arguments, ideas and images.  With a CD-ROM there is the potential for creating an interactive document that could be arranged in a manner to allow for a non-linear exploration of the topics involved, as well as a straight reading of the thesis if so desired.  It would be left up to the audience members to explore the experience as they choose; their exploration would shape their performance(s).  It would be an interactive, interpretive, and (re)presentative process.  The technology and multimedia potential of a CD-ROM raise new and unique issues that I have not even begun to understand fully, and yet, a CD-ROM would allow for interaction as the performance(s) did, albeit in a different, and somewhat lesser, manner.  A CD-ROM would not be as intensively interactive as a live performance.

            Along with the ideas and possibilities of a CD-ROM, several theoretical directions are interesting in terms of better achieving the goals of this study.  For instance, ideas concerning the creation of a culture of art could be explored, looking at how museums and art departments create the boundaries of the art world.  As it is done with the history of art, I am interested in looking at a history of academic discourse in terms movements and periods and renaissances.  Masculine and feminine modes of communication could also be explored, looking at how these modes support and subvert each other and themselves and how they might be utilized together to better express and evoke ideas and images. 

            The text of this study is an attempt to write in the academic discourse I find so restrictive.  I do not mean to assume that all academic discourse is bad.  The structure of this discourse allows for an ordered and logical approach that can aid in discovering interesting points about a problems. Quality academic discourse, which I certainly do not presume this thesis is, can amaze and enlighten us, as much has for me.  And yet, I feel that its formal style does not lend itself to (re)presenting fragmented and indeterminate ideas and images as well as a performance.  I have a deep "distrust of imposed orders" and a strong "desire to dissolve" this "rigid, dichotomous thinking" (Heuvel 13).  The interaction of an audience with a painting and a performance is a wildly diverse and nonlinear experience that feels wrong when expressed in a structured fashion.  I believe the best form of "criticism is a reply in the form of a work of one's own" (Schmitt 33).  Ideally, the critical analysis would be true to the nature of painting/performance.  And yet, these are merely feelings, albeit strong ones, and I realize the importance of struggling from within, creating a work with the discourse of the academy whose structure, through its demands of organization, would help me better find and make my points.

            Perhaps I could artistically and analytically represent, evoke, echo the experience of viewing a painting through the (re)presentative and interactive possibilities found in the performance of painting and the multimedia of CD-ROM.  Words could be read and written, colors on canvas could be seen as you paint them, notes could be heard and improvised into new melodies.  It would be an "idiom that captures some of the inconsistency, indeterminacy and downright counterintuitive strangeness" of expressing the experience of performing a painting (Heuvel 19).  I could further investigate the possibilities of the interactivity of an audience through performance(s) and multimedia CD-ROMs.  In this continual exploration of the performance of painting and the different possible ways to artistically and analytically express ideas, I desire mediums of expression that resonate experiences for others and enable them to engage those experiences interactively.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A:  Periscope (Hart Crane) (1963)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jasper Johns.  Periscope (Hart Crane), 1963, oil on canvas, 170.2 X 121.9 cm (67 X 48").  Collection of the artist, on loan to the National Museum of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C:  LEGEND FOR GROUND PLAN AND CUES

 

 

Seating

            1)  Benches for audience members

            2)  Benches for audience members

            3)  Director's Chair

Placement of technical equipment

            4)  Slide Projector A

            5)  Slide Projector V

            6)  Slide Projector B

            7)  Slide Projector C

            8)  Video Projector

            9)  Tape Player and Speakers

            17)  Door to the room and the overhead light switches

Paint Stations with drop cloths, brushes and paint (termed "P.S." for brevity)

            10)  Paint Station I

            11)  Paint Station II

            12)  Paint Station III

            13)  Paint Station IV

Bases for the cast members

            14)  Critic's Podium

            15)  Player's Pile of Tricks and Bench

            16)  Artist's Easel and Paint Supplies

            22)  Docent and Student's base

            3)  Director's Chair

The projected images of Periscope (Hart Crane)  (termed "P (H C)" for brevity)

            18)  Left P (H C)

            19)  Critic's P (H C)

            20)  Right P (H C)

            21) Video P (H C)

 

 

 

 

Stage Positions and Directions

            22)  Left Thruway

            23)  Center

            24)  Right Thruway

            -THRUWAY--the imaginary line that bisects the room and the audience

            -LEFT--half of the room

            -RIGHT--the other half of the room

            -DOWN--to move down the room toward the Artist's and Player's bases

            -UP--to move up the room toward the Critic's base and the door

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D:  THE SCRIPT

 

Periscope (Hart Crane):  A Performance

 

Docent:            [cast in the room out of character, mingling with the audience, Docent claps to     get the cast to their bases (i.e. Critic to podium, Artist to easel, Player to pile,         Student to center).  They  get to their points and freeze.  As she introduces         them, they break into the performance]

                If you could please give me your attention.  We'll be starting our presentation now.  So, enjoy yourselves and feel free to participate if you so desire.  We have all been exploring the room, looking at the paintings.  Potentially, we can experience these paintings in a variety of ways.  For example, we could see it from the perspective of an Artist.  Or from the point of view of a Critic.  Or from the world of a Player.  Or from a Student's eyes.  Or from the view of a Docent.  Indeed, we can experience bits and parts of all of these perspectives.  And we can experience our own unique one as well.

 

Player:             [from pile]

                Blue bends. 

 

Docent:            [right thruway]

                  This is a performance of Periscope (Hart Crane).  In it, we're exploring how we express what we see in a painting from the perspective that viewing a painting is a performative experience.

 

Player:             [from pile]      

                Today is full of facts, images, and theories which resonate against each other, not offering solutions (Sayre, "Performance" 99).

 

Docent:            [right thruway]

                Today we are attempting to see if a performance is the most effective way to express this performative viewing.

 

 

 

Critic:              [at projector C]

                Today we will also look at how a viewer perceives and constructs meaning from a painting.

 

Docent:             [down right side to easel, Student follows]

                We are questioning the nature of experiencing art in this little event of ours.  More than anything, we want to express the experience of art in a way that would allow us to re-experience the affair of viewing. 

 

Artist:               [from easel, grabs Docent and takes her up right side to thruway]

                In painting, music, sculpture and dance there seems to be eloquence "beyond" words.   Don't you see?  A painting or a song can move me to tears and fill me with joy, unleashing magical, beautiful feelings.  I want to express this beauty.

 

Student:   [with them]

                How can you explore the act of viewing a painting through performance?

 

Player:             [to Student from pile, over]

                Why that's elementary my dear Watson, by performing it.

 

Docent:            [easel]

                In viewing, your enjoyment of a painting springs from your enjoinment with it (Des Pres 14).  You have to dig into it.

 

Student:           [right thruway, to Docent]

                I'm interested in different ways to express my thoughts and feelings about art.

 

Artist:              [get Student and take to easel]

                As I see it, art expresses and criticizes art (Castleman 44). It's a process of sorts.

 

Critic:              [podium, gets Student's attention.  Student up left side to thruway]

                Ahem.  Art is a game, a gambit.  It is a process of reference, deference and difference (Pollock, Griselda 14).  Reference meaning you have to relate your work to what is going on in the art world.  You also have to defer your work to the leading, or definitive, work(s) of that world.  Finally, you have to establish a difference that advances your work beyond the current ones (14).

 

Player:             [grabs Student and spins him in.  Dances thru way and dips on right side]

                The game is afoot so to speak, and an unpredictable game it is.  Meaning is precarious, undefined, waiting to be created.  It is analogous to the idea that a text on the page is different on the stage (Reinelt and Roach 5).

 

Critic:              [over to them, talks to dipped Student]

                And let me just add that painting as such is being drawn toward performance (Phelan 146).  And the performance of this painting is enacted when and where viewing occurs.

 

Student:   [breaks away from Player to pile, to Docent.  Critic to podium]

                It seems we're using language to talk about an experience that I have problems expressing with words.

 

Docent:             [from left side, to Student, over audience, then meet Student at P.S. III]

                Well, there is a distinction between art and ideas.  You see ideas have a direct line to the brain, while art sneaks in through the senses (Melville 38).  Simply beautiful, don't you agree?              

 

Artist:              [to easel.  Student goes to her]

                Yes.  Painting can be simply put.  All you do is take a canvas, put a mark on it, put another mark on it.  Repeat (Castleman 22).

 

Player:             [from right side to between Artist and Student, taking Student back to seat]

                Don't poke your nose into my paintings, the smell of paint will poison you (Gombrich 196).

 

Docent:            [far side, pulls Student back to thruway.  Player thru to P.S. I]

                Let me put it to you.  How do you believe we experience a work of art? 

 

Student:  [to Docent, both left thruway]

                Well, I just have difficulty expressing my feelings about art.

 

 

 

Artist:              [from easel and up right side, over audience]

                Exactly, I am analyzing, trying to capture an experience, but also, I don't want to lose the ability to just react.  I want to always be able to say, so yes, so much and no more (Barthes, Camera Lucida 109).

 

Critic:              [takes Student up left side to podium.  Docent to P.S. III]

                This affair is a smattering of bits; bits of ideology, bits of representation, bits of subjects...  ghosts, pockets, traces, clouds, chiaroscuro (Barthes, Pleasure of the Text 32).  These bits are what you and I, as viewers, draw from a painting.

 

Player:              [takes Student from Critic.  Down left side to thruway]

                Which leads one to wonder, will the spy and the watchman ever meet (Castleman 22)?

 

Student:           [breaks free of Player, to Docent]

                What?

 

Artist:               [from P.S. III]

                We are in a process of drawing bits.  And in this process, there is so much and so little.  It is oh so frustrating and so enlightening as well.

 

Player:              [with Student, left thruway, leaves Student after line]

                Meaning comes through use and user (Adams 13).  And art is anything you can get away with.

 

Critic:               [podium, Critic's P(H C)]

                In art, there are problems of perception; seeing what we know and knowing what we see.  This is emphasized in the title "Periscope"... "Hart Crane" (Crichton 48).

 

Artist:               [easel]

                But you see, I don't think it's a purposeful thing to make something to be looked at, but I think the perception of that object is through the looking and through the thinking (Castleman 43).

 

 

 

Player:             [by Critic's P (H C)]

                The raw materials of perception are exposed here- words and letters on a gray scale but with primary colors, cast as real objects (Crichton 50). 

 

Artist:              [easel.  Student down far side, Docent down right side]

                I think this picture is formed as it is made, and it might be anything (Castleman 16). 

 

Docent:            [@ P.S. I, to Student, over audience]

                It resembles life in that way (Castleman 16).

 

Student:  [left thruway, to Docent, over]

                Aha!?!??...   this is interesting.  Could you to define it more?

 

Player:             [down near side to thruway]

                It is art about the language of art, about what a picture is, or might be, or has been said to be (Sandler 193).

 

Docent:            [center, then to right thruway.  Player to P.S. I]

                We are using language to talk about an experience that our friends here have admitted to being "beyond" words.  This paradoxical situation has not escaped our notice as we struggle with these intuitions we have about the performance of painting.

 

Critic:              [with Student on left side, over to right P (H C)]

                When we are in front of this painting, an immediate intercourse becomes available (Gibson 145).   This performative viewing mimes the image viewed (Phelan 107).  And any number of us can stand and view this text differently. 

 

Student:   [to Critic]

                I feel frustrated trying to express myself with these concrete words, they are the ever-almost-not-quite-right. 

 

Artist:              [easel]

                They aren't elastic enough. 

 

Player:             [pile]

                They don't bend and twist as much as I do.

 

Student:           [to Critic and over to Docent]

                I want a mode of communication that feels right for me.

 

Artist:              [easel, to audience and over to Student]

                I'm just trying to find a way of making pictures (Prinz 41).  And the bits of meaning within a painting are found in and by you. 

 

Docent:            [take Student from Critic, right thruway. Critic to podium]

                You are the unpredictable element that gives the painting its most meaningful moment.

 

Critic:              [podium, Critic's P (H C)]

                The viewer is invited to be a part of the painting's development (Museum Assistant 2).  These marks command the viewer's attention, aiding in the discovery of the essential elements of artistic creation (2).  

 

Student:    [center]

                This is rather confusing to me.

 

Docent:            [edging with Student to left thruway, over to right P (H C)]

                Well, in other words, each of our performances of the painting will, by necessity, be slightly different.  The painting becomes somewhat analogous to a script with which we, the viewers, produce different performative encounters.

 

Player:             [shuffle up right side.  Artist to P.S.  III]

                It's an impression.  Words wash over us and leave drops...   impressions.

 

Student:           [left thruway, over to Player.  Docent to P.S. III]

                Well, language doesn't seem to express the meaning of these impressions.  

 

Player:             [down right side to thruway, over to Student]

                Meanings fall between the words, with so much more hidden in what is not said.  Words... don't express the eloquence of the emotions found in a kiss.

 

 

Artist:               [up left side, caress Student, thru way to Player right thruway]

                There is a synthetic quality about paint that gives it a great sensuality, it makes looking equivalent to touching, or kissing (Castleman 14).  Looking at painting is and is not eating it and being eaten by it (22).

 

Critic:              [Critic and Docent flanking Student on left side, over audience]

                This calls the viewer's attention to the relation of artist, the painting, and the viewer (Crichton 48).

 

Student:    [to Docent]

                Oooo, I like this a lot.

 

Artist:              [right side with Player, over]

                Yes, it all depends on what you are willing to accept is there (Castleman 25).

 

Player:             [over]

                It also involves the arrangement of elements before you, and the arrangement of your senses at the time of the encountering (Castleman 25).

 

Critic:               [to P. S. IV audience]

                This is a relationship between oneself and a thing that is flexible, that can be one thing at one time and something else at another time (Castleman 45).

 

Docent:            [right thruway, to Player]

                We can feel the colors, shapes and textures as we look at the painting.  We should poke our noses into paintings and smell the paint.

 

Student:           [sitting down with a book]

                Well, I think that reading about a painting could help us experience it. 

 

Docent:            [P.S. I, signals Critic to get Student, over audience]

                Yes, reading can show us new contexts and unlock different meanings.  It can be a fascinating "aspect" of our experience. 

 

Artist:              [right P (H C)]

                Squiggles, squaggles, spots, splotches...  Splots.

 

Player:             [@ P.S. II, makes up a definition]

                Splot.  Noun.  From the Latin, "splutara."  This is a term that clearly reveals a strategic "spot" at which ambiguities necessarily arise.  For example;  I splot the sheriff, but I did not sploot the deputy.  

 

Docent:            [right thruway, over audience]

                You see, the effect of our little production is the creation of another text (Long, "Performance as Doing" 26).

 

Student:  [left thruway, over to Docent]

                OK, OK.  This... this fragmented style is fun.  But it's becoming tiresome.

 

Critic:              [take Student with him up the left side]

                Obviously, for we are looking for what is not there, and why.  We then become conscious of that absence and this makes it present; thus the work has only begun. 

 

Artist:               [easel, over to Student and Critic]

                Well, I think any meaning we give to a painting comes through our looking at it (Castleman 26).

 

Critic:              [podium.  Student @ P.S. IV.  Docent to Student]

                So look.  This painting is a poetic expression made with paint.  Periscope (Hart Crane) intriguingly plays between visual and verbal expression (Francis et al. 127).

 

Artist:              [to right thruway]

                But art is a helpless statement.  It's what you can't avoid saying, not what you set out to say (Castleman 43).

 

Student:  [down left side to P.S. III] 

                OK, OK, I'm tired. 

 

Docent:            [right thruway, over audience]

                Good point.  OK, our ideas are good here, but I believe we need to focus them better.

 

Critic:              [podium, reading.  Player up right side.  Docent to P.S. II.  Artist to easel]

                Then let us focus on the painting.  Periscope (Hart Crane) refers to Hart Crane's poem, "Cape Hatteras."  Part IV of The Bridge  reads as follows-

 

Player:             [in front of podium, takes Critic's book, skims, hands it back]

                The captured fume of space foams in our ears-

                What whisperings of far watches on the main

                Relapsing into silence, while time clears

                Our lenses, lifts a focus, resurrects

                A periscope to glimpse what joys or pain

                Our eyes can share or answer- then deflects

                Us, shunting to a labyrinth submersed

                Where each sees only his dim past reversed...

                (Crane 77)

 

Critic:              [@ podium and in front of Player]

                One wonders about Johns' own submersed labyrinth, how he sees his own dim past reversed, like the words in the painting- (Orton 74). 

 

Player:             [side steps to Critic's P (H C)]

                A periscope to glimpse what joys or pains/ Our eyes can share or answer?  To glimpse?  To understand?  To remember?  What?  Joy?  Pain?  Paint?  Colors?

 

Docent:            [right thruway, to audience and Student]

                In Periscope (Hart Crane), Johns is expressing the emotional ideas of literature through the handling of paint (Francis, 54).

 

Critic:              [to P.S. IV audience]

                The past and present are joined and broken with Crane's poetry in Johns' painting (Orton 75).

 

Player:             [podium, then to left P (H C)]

                Which, of course, brings us to the hand.

 

Student:           [far thruway]

                The hand?

 

Critic:               [back to podium, shuffles notes, lost, wings it]

                Yes, of course.  The hand. The hand print gives a human scale by which the canvas can be measured (Museum Asssistant 1).

 

Artist:               [easel]

                I see it as a memento mori (Rosenthal, Mark 62).

 

Docent:            [right thruway, over to Student]

                Look, there's a connection between Crane's hand reaching out in poetry with Johns' hand reaching out in painting (Cuno 218).  The poignancy of the poem is clearly conveyed in the painting (Francis 53).

 

Critic:              [back turned to Player, at left thruway with Student, over to right P (H C)]

                And think about this, the hand could be read as inside or outside the image, emanating from a misty, luminous space inside the canvas (Francis 51).  Or the hand could be the implication of a figure in the painting, breaking the surface, shattering the flatness (51). 

 

Student:  [over to Docent.  Critic to podium, Player to pile]

                 Or could it just be a hand?

 

Docent:            [with Artist, take Student to Critic's P(H C)]

                The hand opens the painting to us.  Look.  This painting.  Is it emotions captured on canvas?

 

Artist:              [on left side of Critic's P (H C)]

                Or... is it intentional artistic skill, manipulating us to think emotions have been captured?

 

Player:             [thru way from left to right]

                We only see wisps of words and only hear droplets of sentences (Kristeva, "Stabat Mater" 182). 

 

Artist:              [podium]

                The colors; grey, red, yellow, blue, gray.  They hint at textures, layers, depth. 

 

Player:             [right thruway]

                Grey, red, yellow, blue, gray.  These are malleable words.  Like they, you and me.

 

Critic:              [easel.  Player down right side]

                No, No and No.  The words red, blue and yellow stabilize the surface and also insinuate the infinite repetition of the color spectrum.  There are some obvious parallels in the semiotics of language with a semiotics of painting as it were.

 

Player:             [beside Critic, mimicking him]

                No, No and No.  Color is unboundable, it shapes space as well as bursting beyond it. 

 

Critic:                [easel]

                Color is almost an excess of meaning, opening up the experience of art to the viewer's imaginations.

 

Student:   [down left side to thruway.  Docent to P.S. IV]

                To our imaginations? 

 

Artist:               [thru way left to right and to easel. Critic up right to podium, Player to pile]

                In the viewing of a painting there are lots of factors.  There's thinking, seeing, saying and...  nothing (Castleman 20).

 

Docent:            [right thru way, over to Student]

                Today, we are opening ourselves up to something more than words, something in which space and color have been included.  Paralleling ideas in language with ideas in color.

 

Critic:               [left thruway, over to right P (H C)]

                In here, color works in and against representation.  Color will lead us toward a relative independence from words, both in and against them. 

 

Player:             [pile]

                And yet, color exceeds and disrupts the system, opening to the viewing performer.

 

Docent:            [center, slow spin, point to audience members, end at right thruway]

                This shifts the focus to the viewers of the painting, or more precisely, you, you, you and you. 

 

Student:  [left thruway]

                OK, If we're invited to imagine the meanings of a painting, you could say this is a performance of imagination.

 

Docent:            [right thruway]

                It takes imagination.  Imagine, if you will, "seeing" the sounds of colors as you listen to the music of the painting (Kristeva, "Stabat Mater" 185). 

 

Player:             [from pile]

                There is a rhythm in the music of painting (Kristeva, "Stabat Mater" 183). 

 

Critic:              [slaps podium, writes on chalkboard]

                We can use the idea of a chiasmus to express a connection of colors and sounds.   A chiasmus is an A, B, B, A, process of folding and unfolding (Gibson 142).  For example, the sounds of colors and the colors of sounds.  Once again, we are looking for meaning, inserting the signs of language into painting.

 

Student:  [down left side to P.S. III]

                This is starting to sound like we're going in circles here.

 

Critic:              [down left side to thruway, to Student]

                There are contradictions between the verbal images and the colored areas.  Should the names of colors necessarily call the colors to mind (Sandler 187)? 

 

Artist:              [from P.S. II, over to Student]

                The color scale has infinite variations.  It is a realm of serendipitous whimsy.  Colors could be shades, moods, shadows.  Color could be everything and nothing. 

 

Student:  [center,  over to Artist and Docent]

                So red means red?  Or what?  And someone means you?  And me?

 

 

Player:             [@ center, then to pile]

                When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.  The question is not whether you can make words mean so many different things.  The question is which is to be master--that's all (Carroll 169).  Words are drops, impressions.  Drip, dribble, squirt.

 

Docent:            [podium, then to Slide Projector C]

                As we have seen, the viewer's experience is a colored and sonorous performance of the painting.  Words of sounds and colors combined together might aid in performatively expressing the experience of a painting.

 

Critic:              [podium, Docent - slides of P (H C), Student at P.S. IV, Player to  P.S. I]

                To add to this, one should know that Periscope (Hart Crane) has several related works, each with some variation (Rosenthal, Nan 180).  There are: Passage, Diver, Land's End, Hatteras, Periscope, By the Sea, and Out the Window 2. 

 

Player:             [right thruway]

                There are different ways of doing things, different ways of applying paint, so that language becomes somewhat unclear (Castleman 44).

 

Artist:               [easel to pile]

                Why yes, I am interested with the possibility of things being taken for one thing or another or yet another (Castleman 44).

 

Player:             [right thruway]

                The point of all this is not to find a right or wrong but to simply go finding.

 

Student:   [left thruway]

                What? 

 

Artist:              [from P.S. III, over to Student]

                You're dealing with your thoughts about the painting rather than with the painting.

 

Docent:            [right thruway.  Cast gets scripts from bases, Docent gives one to Student]

                You know, we really need to be more responsible with our presentation of theoretical ideas in all of this.  Ahem.  Scripts please.  And now,

 

All:                  [Critic turns of music.  Player turns off video, and turns on slide. Student at         center.  Rest of cast in projected paintings. Lines overlap each othet, not         together but staggered, with one character reading the end of the preceding line before the other character and then reading the beginning of the following         character's line.  And everyone will be dripping words]

                Periscope (Hart Crane), 1963 by Jasper Johns.     

 

Player:     A painting in three panels in various shades of gray.  A gloomy rainbow of grays. 

Artist:       The colors of his emotions, sighs of despair, raging against the night. 

Critic:       A device has scraped off a semi-circle of paint that breaks the top two panels on the right.  An onomatopoetic scraping, scarring the canvas, measuring, smearing paint.

Player:     Pulling various shades, a spectrum from dark gray in the middle to white at the arc.

Docent:    A hand shoots out horizontally from the middle of the device circle, leaving an impression of a hand print.  Hart Crane. 

Critic:       A human scale, in relation to the canvas.  The artist's touch, reaching out from the canvas.

Student:   A poem in a painting, a painting of a poem. 

Docent:    Top panel, RED.

Player:     Written in red and again, larger, on top of, in rust.  RED on RED, pushing into depth of painting. 

Artist:       The color for the word, the word for the color.  Red that isn't red. 

Critic:       Rapid brush strokes of the artist, energy captured in strokes of gray.  Dripping paint, dripping into device circle, time passes as the drips dry.

Docent:    A cacophony of confusion, the noiseless noise of word play in paint.  Letters of the word, R, E, and D strewn about not in the color, in white. 

Student:   A RED panel in a wild hodge-podge of grays.  And a hint of green, on the edge of the device circle.

Docent:    The middle panel, the YELLOW panel.  Mottled shades of gray, the same difference.

Artist:       A similar melody with a different harmony.

Player:     Letters EY flipping to YELLOW with W covered by device circle.  Stretching out of the painting, about face and to the left.

Student:   YELLOW drips gray into BLUE.  BLUE twice, three times.  Once small in light blue and bigger, on top, in darker blue.

Critic:       Shades of yellow, orange and red in the two E's. Yielding yellow, a note of caution.

Player:     An accent, a splot of green in the bottom left, a down note, a blue note in the minor key of green.

Artist:       A splot of orangeyellow in the top left, a high note in the BLUE reflecting the low in YELLOW.

Student:   Squiggles in shades of gray, a tempo of brushwork.

Docent:    The bottom panel, the BLUEs in grays. 

Artist:       Shades of blue, shades of gray, blue in gray, gray in blue. 

Player:     A gloomy, smoke-filled room, wailing away in the painting.  Looking around in this room. 

Critic:       BLUE written in a twist, the B and half of the L in purple, diagonally down to the right. The other half of the L in blue, twisting diagonally up to the right, followed by a blue UE.

Student:   Hints of purple, a squiggle of red, a splotched line of yellow.

Docent:    Down in purple, up in blue.

Player:     The bridge in the twist, the twist in the bridge.

Artist:       Noodling colors in gray, accenting the blues. 

Critic:       A black arrow pointing down, sinking, ending, dying, over. 

Docent:    Illusionistic impressions of mottled, mixed shades of color, a hand, a device circle, letters.

Artist:       The bottom of the canvas, the paint stops, but drips down.  The exposed medium, colors on canvas, a painting. 

Student:   All layers of paint on a canvas, blobs of paint in shifting shades of gray.

Docent:    Emotions, ideas, colors, sounds, shadows.

Player:     An illusion of depth, a deep illusion.  A gloomy, confused place of dark colors, emotional brush strokes. 

Artist:       Clear as a day on a gray night.

 Critic:      To look, to hear, to feel, to think, in paint. 

Student:   To fear, to heal.

Artist:       Gray notes of red, yellow and blue played in paint. 

Player:     Shadows of a painting,

 

All:                  [in a whisper]

                A painting of shadows.

 

 

 

Student:   [steps back to right thruway]

                That was beautiful, but it was also difficult.  And it makes me wonder, can you be poetic and academic at the same time?

 

Artist:              [down left side to easel, painting by end of line.  Cast breaks to base on         "doing."  Docent turns lights on after line]

                We can get a lot by doing (Castleman 11).  That kind of exchange is stronger than talking (12).  It's nice to have verbal ideas about painting but it's better to express them through the medium itself (12).

 

Student:   [from left thruway, over to Artist]

                With a painting?

 

Artist:                [easel, over to Student]

                Well, this event...  I see it as art.  Publicly a work becomes not just intention, but the way it is used (Castleman 15).

 

Docent:            [P.S. I]

                  Our event opens the painting up to the plurality of our interpretations (Sayre, Object of Performance 6).

 

Critic:              [at  podium]

                Perception is not passive, but active.  It is a process of interpretation and imagination (Crichton 50).

 

Docent:            [cuts lights after line]

                These colors and sounds are not to be met with a blind eye and a deaf ear (Irigaray 165). 

 

Artist:              [easel]

                Listen to the sounds of an olive...  with a red undertow.  Beside a vermilion with some cobalt and lapis, and a red that looks cadmium but is stoked with something that makes it sizzle a slightly silvery light (Gibson 131). 

 

 

 

Docent:            [from slide projector A]

                See the sounds of the colors as you listen to the music of the painting (Kristeva, "Stabat Mater" 185). 

 

Artist:               [slide projector V]

                You are seeing the wind among grasses, and a seagull's faraway call.  The echoes of waves, auto horns, voices, or nothing (Kristeva, "Stabat Mater" 166). 

 

Player:             [slide projector B, turn slide projectors off after "vice-versa"  Dark]

                This is a work not only to be heard, but to be seen.  And vice-versa.

 

All:                  [Lines overap like before, but spoken softly, echoing the previous poem]

 

Player:     Periscope (Hart Crane).  A rainbow of grays, a hand print, Hart Crane.

Artist:       Dripped paint, brush strokes, the artist's touch.

Critic:       A poem in paint, RED on RED, depth into painting, word play. 

Student:   Gray on gray, a melodious harmony of color. 

Docent:    Reflections, stretching out of canvas, exit stage left. 

Artist:       A blue note in the minor key of green. 

Docent:    Three panels.  Red, Yellow, Blue. 

Critic:       An arrow down on a sea of gray.

Student:   Hint of purple, squiggle of red, splot of yellow.

Player:     BLUEs in a gloomy, smoke filled room, twisting, wailing.

Docent:    Gray notes read in red, yellow and blue in paint.

Artist:       Noodling colors in gray, colors on canvas.

Critic:       To look, to hear, to feel, to think in paint. 

Student:   To fear and heal. 

Player:     Shadows of a painting, a painting of shadows. 

Student:   A painting of shadows, shadows of a painting. 

Player:     A painting of shadows, shadows of a painting.

Student:   Shadows of a painting, a painting of shadows.

           

            [Soak up silence.  Cast turns projectors back on and exits room.  Then                      returns, lights and music back on, and cast joins audience]

 

THE END

 

APPENDIX E:  ADDENDA TO SCRIPT

 

            The following lines are to be recorded and looped on videotape to serve as a narration to the slides on the video as well as to the performance event itself.  This video will be played before, during and after the performance event(s).

 

 

Narrator:  We are working with Jasper Johns because his works deal with issues of the complex and ambiguous process of experiencing art (Sandler 183).  He is interested in the equivocal nature of vision and how it effects the perception of art (187).  Johns, like many artists such as Duchamp, Rauschenberg and Warhol, plays with ideas of what is art and what is not art by incorporating everyday objects within his works.  Unlike the others, Johns makes works that are made like art.  They are not real artifacts, although they look as if they could function as such in life (185).  Johns acts on the materials of art and re-creates a commonplace object in a virtuoso fashion (189).  They are always beautifully made (191).  His works are about the language of art; about what a picture is, or might be, or has been said to be (193).

 

Narrator:  We have chosen to specifically work with Periscope (Hart Crane) because it deals with issues of what a painting can be and express.  This painting is often grouped with others by Johns: By the Sea, Land's End, and Out the Window (Crichton 48).  The titles of these works can be seen to emphasize problems of perception in making statements about the position of the viewer and/or the viewed work itself (48).  Periscope (Hart Crane) also continues in Johns' tradition of including in his works the words for colors.  This inclusion causes a contradiction between the verbal images and the colored areas (Sandler 187).  It can be read as a composition of visual poetry (Francis et al. 127).  Periscope (Hart Crane) furthers this possibility in its reference to a poet and a poem.

 

Narrator:  The irony that we are looking at photographs of paintings has not escaped our notice.  These photographs subvert the uniqueness of the painted image as it is reproduced (Berger, Ways of Seeing 19).  But, as a result of this, the possible meanings multiply and fragment into many more meanings (19).  The photographs do distort the painting so it is still unique in a sense.  You can go to the National Museum of American Art in Washington, DC and see what these photographs lack (20).  The uniqueness of the painting now lies in it being the original of a reproduction.  Its uniqueness is no longer to be found in what it says, but in what it is; a painting (21).

 

Narrator:  We are exploring these issues in terms of painting as opposed to photography specifically because a painting is a selective interpretation while a photograph is a selective transparency (sontag 6).  A photograph belongs to its subject.  It is a trace of the real, while a painting is an interpretation of the real (Berger, About Looking 54).  A painting is the artist's interpretation of what s/he saw.  It is their artistic expression of what they've seen. This theme of interpretation is carried over into the idea that viewers draw meaning from a painting through their interpretations of what they see. The interpretation is carried on to yet another level in this performance based on interpretations of Periscope (Hart Crane).  These performed interpretations are now opened up to interpretations themselves. 

 

Narrator:  Color can be beyond words in so many different ways.  We are playing with semiotics yet again. The signifier- colors, and signified- words, are confused, commingled.  We have words for colors and colors for words.  One as another and neither constrained by the other.  The signified and signifier push and pull differently, but in the same directions.  Look at the letters in the bent blue; bending, twisting away, escaping the boundaries of their form, like color.  Johns is doing something different with color.  It's blue that isn't blue.  It's color beyond color.  Avoiding color and accepting it in the same instant, it becomes elaborated and confused.  The meaning of color is in relation to itself, and in excess of itself.  The 3-D letters  of words signify color transitions, gradating the spectrum with their definitions.  The signified for the signifier is signifying for more.  The letters of the word "blue" are exceeding form and accepting as well, unfolding the lines of this word of color.   It's a blue that's gray.  It is going beyond itself, and it is still blue.  These colorful words are words full of color.  The signified is with the signifier.  Blue is bent into a chromatic clash and harmony with itself, with the meaning of itself.  So, color erases color, and reproduces color.

 

Narrator:  By performing the experience of this painting we are representing and interpreting it.  We are also trying to represent and interpret the nature of this experience and how to best express it.  This performance itself is a play between writing, performing and painting.  With it, we are writing about the performance of painting.  One of the purposes of this performance is to look at the viewing of a painting as a performance through selected performance, aesthetic, art and perception theories.  A second purpose is to record in writing and evoke and echo in this performance the experience of Periscope (Hart Crane).  A third is to use this experience to question the nature of experiencing painting and ways to express it. 

 

Narrator:  Ideas from Barthes, Nochlin and Kristeva have helped us to think of the viewing of painting as a performative experience.  It might be seen as an embodied affair in which we recreate the meanings of the painting in our performance of it.  And ideas from Kristeva, Gibson and Irigaray have led us to believe that this experience might be expressed performatively.

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            The following is a list of slides looped on the videotape that accompany the narrative lines.  They are all works by Jasper Johns and can be found in the Color Plate section of Jasper Johns by Michael Crichton (See WORKS CITED).  Note:  the list is in order as they have been videotaped, not in alphabetical order. 

 

            -Periscope (Hart Crane)  (1963)  (Plate 105­)

            -Out the Window 2  (1962)  (Plate 102)

            -By the Sea  (1961)  (Plate 79)

            - Diver  (1962)  (Plate 106)

            -Out the Window  (1959)  (Plate 56)

            -Watchman  (1964)  (Plate 118)

            -False Start  (1959)  (Plate 51)

            -Map  (1961)  (Plate 74)

            -Gray Alphabets  (1956)  (Plate 18) 

            -Target with Plaster Casts  (1955)  (Plate 7)

            -Flag  (1955)  (Plate 1)

            -Scent   (1973-1974)  (Plate 161)

            -Painted Bronze  (1960)  (Plate 68)

            -The Critic Smiles  (1959)  (Plate 62)

            -The Critic Sees  (1961)  (Plate 90)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

            The following is a bibliographical list of the songs that were played during the performance.  The songs are to be taped in one minute sections on a forty-five minute cassette tape.  This tape, along with the video, will be played before, during and after the show. 

Note:  the list is in the recording order instead of alphabetical order.  

 

 

 

Cage, John.  "Music for Amplified Toy Pianos."  John Cage:  Works for Piano, Toy             Piano & Prepared Piano - Vol. III.  wergo, 286 158-2. 1991.

 

portastatic.  "st. elmo's fire."   scrapbook ep.  merge, 3778, 1993.

 

Led Zeppelin.  "Good times Bad Times."  Led Zeppelin.  Atlantic, 19126-2, 1969. 

 

Phair, Liz.  "6'1"."  Exile in Guyville.  Matador,  051-2, 1993.

 

Latin Playboys.  "Ten Believers."  Latin Playboys.  WB, 9 45543-2, 1994. 

 

Wonder, Stevie.  "Higher Ground.  The Original Musiquarium I.  Motown, 3746360022,             1981. 

 

Soul Coughing.  "Is Chicago, Is Not Chicago."  Ruby Vroom.  WB, 9 45752-2, 1994. 

 

Spatula.  "kuskus."  even the thorny acacia.  Jesus Christ, JC002, 1994. 

 

Hart, Mickey.  "The Dancing Sorcerer."  Planet Drum.  Rykodisc, 10206, 1991. 

 

Nature Recordings.    "Songbirds of Spring (A)"  Earth, Sea & Sky:  The Nature Recordings      Sampler, Vol. 1.  World Discs, CDE101, 1990.

 

Uncle Tupelo.  "Sandusky."  March 16-20, 1992.  Rockville, 1992.  

 

Southern Culture on the Skids.  "Five Dollar Shoes."  Too Much Pork for Just One Fork.              Moist, MR-104, 1991. 

 

Family Dollar Pharaohs.  "Silver Crashout."  Haunted.  Flavor-Contra, 1995. 

 

Stalling, Carl.  "Hillbilly Hare."  The Carl Stalling Project.  WB, 26027-2, 1990. 

 

Pavement.  "5-4=Unity."  Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain.  Matador, de 079-2, 1994. 

 

Love, G. and Special Sauce.  "The Things That I Used To Do."  G. Love and Special             Sauce.  epic, EK 57851, 1994.

 

Beastie Boys.  "Stand Together."  Check Your Head.  Grand Royal, CDP.7989382, 1992. 

 

The Magnetic Fields.  "Long Vermont Roads."  The Charm of the Highway Strip.  merge,             MRG055CD, 1993. 

 

guided by voices.  "a good flying bird."  alien lanes.  Matador, OLE 123-2, 1995.

 

Polvo.  "Old Lystra."  Celebrate the New Dark Age.  merge, MRG 056 CD, 1994.

 

esquivel.  "whatchamacallit."  space-age bachelor pad music.  RCA, DRC1-1188. 1994.   

 

The Beatles.  "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds."  Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club             Band.  EMI, CDP7 46442 2, 1987. 

 

Simon, Paul.  "Diamonds On The Soles Of Her Shoes."  Graceland.  WB, 9 25447-2,             1986. 

 

U2.  "Daddy's Gonna Pay For Your Crashed Car."  Zooropa.  Polygram, 314-518 047-2,               1993.

 

Moby.  "Hymn."  Everything Is Wrong.  Elektra, 61701-2, 1995. 

 

African Head Charge.  "Heading to Glory."  In Pursuit of Shashame Land.  On-U Sound,             7 72763-2, 1993. 

 

Nature Recordings.  "Tropical Lagoon (A)"  Earth, Sea & Sky:  The Nature Recordings             Sampler, Vol. 1.  World Discs, CDE101, 1990.

 

Gottschalk, Louis.  "Allegro Moderato."  A Gottschalk Festival.  VoxBox, CDX 5009,             1990. 

 

rich, charlie.  "pictures and paintings."  pictures and paintings.  WB, 9 26730-2, 1992.

 

Squirrel Nut Zippers.  "Anything But Love."  The Inevitable Squirrel Nut Zippers.              Mammoth, MR0105-2, 1995.  

 

Portishead.  "Sour Times."  Dummy.  Go!, 422-828- 553-2, 1994. 

 

Parker, Charlie.  "The Song Is You."  The Essential Charlie Parker.  Verve, 314 517 173-            2,         1992. 

 

De La Soul.  "The Magic Number."  3 Feet High And Rising.  Tommy Boy, TBCD 1019,             1989. 

 

A Tribe Called Quest.  "Jazz (We've Got)."  The Low End Theory.  Jive, 1418-2-J, 1991.

 

Beck.  "Beercan."  Mellow Gold.  DGC, DIDX 021767, 1994.  

 

Jane's Addiction.  "Been Caught Stealing."  Ritual de lo Habitual.  WB, 9 25993-2, 1990. 

 

Grifters.  "Cinnamon."  Crappin' You Negative.  Shangri-La, 1994. 

 

Sonic Youth.  "Bull In The Heather."  Experimental Jet Set, Trash No Star.  DGC, DIDX             022092, 1994. 

 

Thinking Fellers Union Local 282.  "My Pal the Tortoise."  Strangers From The Universe.              Matador, OLE 109-2, 1994. 

 

Yo La Tengo.  "Decora."  Electr-O-Pura.  Matador, ole 132-2 92550-2, 1995.

 

sebadoh.  "skull."  bakesale.  SUB POP, 1994.  

 

Pixies.  "Trompe Le Monde."  Trompe Le Monde.  Elektra, 61118-2, 1991.

 

the jon spencer Blues Explosion.  "very rare."  orange.  Matador, ole 105-2, 1994.

 

Waits, Tom.  "The Black Rider."  The Black Rider.  Island, 314-518 559-2, 1993.

 

Jones, Spike.  "Powerhouse."  Spiked!  The Music of Spike Jones.  Catalyst, 09026-            61982-2, 1994.      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WORKS CITED

 

 

 

Adams, Doug.  "Ironies in Jasper Johns' Painting:  Parallels to Wittgenstein and Polanyi."              Presented for conference.  Boston, Oct, 1974.  Found in Vertical Files of National             Collection of Fine Arts.

 

Athanases, Steven Z.  "When Print Alone Fails Poetry:  Performance as a Contingency of             Literary Value."  Text and Performance Quarterly 11 (1991): 116-127.

 

Auslander, Philip.  Presence and Resistance:  Postmodernism and Cultural Politics in             Contemporary American Performance.  Ann Arbor:  U of Michigan P, 1992. 

 

Barthes, Roland.  Camera Lucida.  New York:  Hill and Wang, 1981.

 

---.   Image-Music-Text.  New York:  Hill and Wang, 1977.

 

---.  The Pleasure of the Text.  New York:  Hill and Wang, 1975.

 

Beardsley, Monroe C.  Aesthetics.  Indianapolis:  Hackett Publishing Co., Inc., 1981.

 

Berger, John.  About Looking.  London:  Writers and Readers, 1980.

 

---.  Ways of Seeing.  London:  Penguin Books, 1972.

 

Berleant, Arnold.  Art and Engagement.  Philadelphia:  Temple UP, 1991.

 

Bernstein, Roberta.  Jasper Johns' Paintings and Sculptures 1954-1974.  Ann Arbor:  UMI             Research P, 1975.

 

Cage, Timothy S.  "Frank O'Hara:  Poetry, Painting and Performance."  thesis, U of             North Carolina-CH, 1988.

 

---, and Lawrence Rosenfeld.  "Ekphrastic Poetry in Performance:  An Examination of             Audience Perceptions of the Relationship between Poetry and Painting."  Text and             Performance Quarterly  9.3 (1989): 199-206.

 

Carroll, Lewis.  Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking Glass.  New             York:  Bantam Books, 1981.

 

Castleman, Riva.  Jasper Johns:  A Print Retrospective.  New York:  Little, Brown and             Co., 1986.

 

Conquergood, Dwight.  "Performance Theory, Hmong Shamans, and Cultural Politics."              Critical Theory and Performance.  Eds. Janelle G. Reinelt and Joseph R. Roach.              Ann Arbor:  U of Michigan P, 1992.

 

Crane, Hart.  Complete Poems of Hart Crane.  ed. Marc Simon.  New York:  Liveright,             1986. 

 

Crichton, Michael.  Jasper Johns.  New York:  Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1977.

 

Cuno, James.  Fiorades/Fizzles:  Echo and Allusion in the Art of Jasper Johns.  Los             Angeles: Wight Art Gallery, 1987.

 

Des Pres, Terrence.  Writing into the World:  Essays 1973-1987.  New York: Viking,             1991.

 

Feinstein, Roni.  "Random Order:  The First Fifteen Years of Robert Rauschenberg's Art,             1949-1964."  DAI  51/05 (1990): 1422A.  New York U.

 

Francis, Richard.  Jasper Johns.  New York:  Abbeville Press, 1984.

 

---, et al.  Dancers On a Plane:  Cage, Cunningham, Johns.  London:  Anthony d'Offay             Gallery, 1989.

 

Freedman, Diane P., Olivia Frey and Frances M. Zauhar.  Introduction.  The Intimate             Critique.  Eds.  Diane P. Freedman, Olivia Frey and Frances M. Zauhar.  Durham:              Duke UP, 1993.

 

Galizia, Luiz.  "Robert Wilson's Creative Process:  Whole Works of Art for the             Contemporary American Theatre."  DAI  42/01 (1980): 22A.  U of California,             Berkeley.

 

Gibson, Ann.  "Painting:  the Ultimate Case of Monochrome."  Genders:  Art  Literature              Film  History.  13 (1992):  123-152.

 

Goldberg, RoseLee.  Performance Art:  From Futurism to the Present.  London:  Thames and      Hudson, 1988.

 

Gombrich, E.H.  Art and Illusion.  New Jersey:  Princeton UP, 1961.

 

Gusfield, Joseph R.  Introduction.  On Symbols and Society.  By Kenneth Burke.              Chicago:  U of Chicago P, 1989.

 

Hamera, Judith.  "On Reading, Writing, and Speaking the Politics of (self-) Re-            Presentation."  Text and Performance Quarterly  10 (1990): 235-247.

 

Herrigel, Eugen.  Zen in the Art of Archery.  New York:  Vintage Books, 1989.

 

Heuvel, Michael Vandon.  Performing Drama/Dramatizing Performance:  Alternative             Theater and the Dramatic Text.  Ann Arbor:  U of Michigan P, 1993.

 

Irigaray, Luce. Sexes and Genealogies.  New York:  Columbia UP, 1987.

 

James, Carol P.  "'No, Says the Signified':  The 'Logical Status' of Words in Painting."              Visible-Language  19.4 (1985): 439-461.

 

Johns, Jasper.  Periscope (Hart Crane) (1963).  National Museum of American Art,             Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC.  Plate 105 of Jasper Johns.  By Michael             Crichton.  New York:  Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1977.

 

Johns, Jasper.  Painted Bronze (1960).  Collection of the artist.  Slide on p.31 of Jasper             Johns.  By Michael Crichton.  New York:  Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1977.

 

Kaye, Jon N.  "The Fine Artist's Use of Theatre Form Since 1945."  DAI  49/01 (1988):  4A.      U of Manchester.

 

Kleinau, Marion L., and Janet Larson McHughes.  Theatres for Literature:  A Practical             Aesthetics for Group Interpretation.  Sherman Oaks, CA:  Alfred Publishing Co.,             Inc., 1980.

 

Kristeva, Julia.  Desire in Language.  New York:  Columbia UP, 1980.

 

---.  The Kristeva Reader.  New York:  Columbia UP, 1986.  

 

Long, Beverly Whitaker.  "Evaluating Performed Literature."  Studies in Interpretation.              vol. II.  Eds.  Esther M. Boyle and Virginia Hastings Floyd.  Amsterdam:  Rodopi,             1977.

 

---.  "Performance as Doing:  A Reconsideration of Evaluating Performed Literature."              Festschrift for Isabel Crouch:  Essays on the Theory, Practice, and Criticism of             Performance.  Ed.  Wallace A. Bacon.  New Mexico:  New Mexico State UP,             1987.

 

---.  "Performance Criticism and Questions of Value."  Text and Performance Quarterly  11             (1991): 106-115.

 

--- and Timothy S. Cage.  "Contemporary American Ekphrastic Poetry:  A Selected             Bibliography."  Text and Performance Quarterly  9 (1989): 286-297.

 

MacArthur, Charlotte Winburn.  "Portraitists In Performance - Four Women Originals             (Sacchetto; Germany:  Guilbert; France:  Draper, Enters; United States)."  DAI              45/04 (1983): 987A.  U of Pittsburgh.

 

Mair, Victor H.  Painting and Performance.  Hawaii:  U of Hawaii P, 1988.

 

McLaughlin, Thomas.  "Introduction."  Critical Terms for Literary Study.  Eds. Frank             Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin.  Chicago:  U of Chicago P, 1987.

 

Melville, Stephen.  "Between Art and Criticism:  Mapping the Frame in United States."              Theater Journal  37.1 (1985): 31-43.

 

Mitchell, W.J.T.  "Representation."  Critical Terms for Literary Study.  Eds. Frank             Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin.  Chicago:  U of Chicago P, 1987.

 

Museum Assistant of National Collection of Fine Arts.  Periscope (Hart Crane) 1963             Jasper Johns.  Found in Vertical Files of National Collection of Fine Arts.

 

Orton, Fred.  Figuring Jasper Johns.  Cambridge:  Harvard UP, 1994.

 

Park-Fuller, Linda M., and Ronald J. Pelias.  "Charting Alernative Performance and             Evaluative Practices."  Communication Education.  44 (1995):  126-139.

 

Phelan, Peggy.  Unmarked: The Politics of Performance.  New York:  Routledge, 1993.

 

Pollock, Della.  "Making History Go."  Exceptional Spaces:  Essays in Performance and             History.  Chapel Hill:  UNC Press, Forthcoming.

 

---.  "Telling the Told:  Performing Like a Family."  The Oral History Review.  18.2             (1991): 1-36.

 

Pollock, Griselda.  Avant-Garde Gambits  1888-1893.  New York:  Thames and Hudson,             1992.

 

Press Information.  Jasper Johns. A Print Retrospective.  L.A. County Museum, Oct. 1,             1987.

 

Prinz, Jessica.  Art Discourse/Discourse in Art.  New Jersey:  Rutgers UP, 1991.

 

Reinelt, Janelle G., and Joseph R. Roach, eds.  Critical Theory and Performance.  Ann             Arbor:  U of Michigan P, 1992.

 

Rodriguez, Richard. "Complexion."  Out There:  Marginalization and Contemporary             Cultures.  Eds.  Russell Ferguson et al.  New York:  The New Museum of             Contemporary Art, 1990.

 

Rosenthal, Mark.  Jasper Johns:  Work Since 1974.  Philadelphia:  Philadelphia Museum of         Art, 1988.    

 

---.  "Dancers on a Plane and other Stratagems for Inclusion in the Work of Jasper Johns."              Dancers on a Plane:  Cage, Cunningham, Johns.  Ed. Judy Adam.  London:              Anthony d'Offay Gallery, 1989.

 

Rosenthal, Nan and Ruth E. Fine.  The Drawings of Jasper Johns.  Washington, DC:              Thames and Hudson, 1990.

 

Sandler, Irving.  The New York School.  New York:  Harper & Row, 1978.

 

Sayre, Henry.  The Object of Performance.  Chicago:  U of Chicago P,  1989.

 

---.  "Performance."  Critical Terms for Literary Study.  Eds. Frank Lentricchia and             Thomas McLaughlin.  Chicago:  U of Chicago P, 1987.

 

Schechner, Richard.  "Invasions Friendly and Unfriendly:  The Dramaturgy of Direct             Theater."  Critical Theory and Performance.  Eds. Janelle G. Reinelt and Joseph R.             Roach.  Ann Arbor:  U of Michigan P, 1992.

 

Schieve, Catherine F.  "'Shading:'  A Music/Graphic Composition.  (Original Work)             (Notation, Score, Wind Instruments)."  DAI  45/06 (1984): 1570A.  U of California,             San Diego.

 

Schmitt, Natalie Crohn.  Actors and Onlookers:  Theater and Twentieth-Century Scientific             Views of Nature.  Evanston, Illinois:  Northwestern UP, 1990.

 

Silverman, Kaja.  The Acoustic Mirror:  The Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema.              Bloomington:  Indiana UP, 1988.

 

Sontag, Susan.  On Photography.  New York:  Anchor Books, 1989.

 

States, Bert O.  "The Phenomenological Attitude."  Critical Theory and Performance.  Eds.             Janelle G. Reinelt and Joseph R. Roach.  Ann Arbor:  U of Michigan P, 1992.

 

Steltz, Christiana T.  "Futurism:  Painting and Performance."  DAI 35/07 (1974): 4741A.              U of Washington.

 

Stern, Carol Simpson and Bruce Henderson.  Performance:  Texts and Contexts.  New             York:  Longman, 1993.   

 

Strine, Mary S., Beverly Whitaker Long and Mary Frances HopKins.  "Research in             Interpretation and Performance Studies:  Trends, Issues, Priorities."  Speech             Communication:  Essays to Commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Speech             Communication Association.  Eds.  Gerard M. Phillips and Julia T. Wood.              Carbondale:  S Illinois UP, 1990.

 

Valentine, Kristin.  "A Patterned Imagination:  William Morris' Use of Pattern in Decorative             Design and the Last Prose Romances."  Thesis.  U of Utah, 1974.

 

---.  "Readers Theatre Productions of Combined Arts:  The Pre-Raphaelite Paradigm."              Western Journal of Speech Communication.  41.2 (1977): 98-109.

 

Walker, John.  "Hogarth's Painting 'The Beggar's Opera':  Cast and Audience at the First             Night."  Essays in Honor of Paul Mellon:  Collector and Benefactor.  Ed.  John             Wilmerding.  Wash. DC:  National Gallery of Art, 1986.

 

Zweig, Ellen M.  "Performance Poetry:  Critical Approaches to Contemporary Intermedia."              DAI  41/02 (1980): 661A.  U of Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WORKS CONSULTED

 

 

 

Adams, Doug.  "Ironies in Jasper Johns' Painting:  Parallels to Wittgenstein and Polanyi."    Presented for conference.  Boston, Oct, 1974.  Found in Vertical Files of National      Collection of Fine Arts.

 

Arnheim, Rudolf.  Art and Visual Perception.  Berkeley:  U of California P, 1969.

 

Ashbery, John.   John Ashbery.  Selected Poems.  Ed. Elizabeth Sifton.  Harrisonburg,             Virginia:  R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 1985.

 

Athanases, Steven Z.  "When Print Alone Fails Poetry:  Performance as a Contingency of             Literary Value."  Text and Performance Quarterly 11 (1991): 116-127.

 

Auslander, Philip.  Presence and Resistance:  Postmodernism and Cultural Politics in             Contemporary American Performance.  Ann Arbor:  U of Michigan P, 1992.

 

Bakhtin, Mikhail.  Rabelais and His World.  Bloomington:  Indiana UP, 1984. 

 

Ball, William.  A Sense of Direction:  Some Observations on the Art of Directing.  New             York:  Drama Books, 1984. 

 

Balzac, Honore de.  "The Unknown Masterpiece." Honore de Balzac.  George Burnham             Ives trans.  New York:  Putnam, 1903.

 

Baudrillard, Jean.  Simulations.  New York:  Semiotext(e), 1983.

 

Barthes, Roland.  Camera Lucida.  New York:  Hill and Wang, 1981.  

 

---.   Image-Music-Text.  New York:  Hill and Wang, 1977.

 

---.  Mythologies.  New York:  Noonday Press, 1972.

 

---.  The Pleasure of the Text.  New York:  Hill and Wang, 1975.

 

---.  Roland Barthes.  Berkeley:  U of California P, 1977.

 

Benjamin, Walter.  Illuminations.  New York:  Schocken, 1968. 

 

Beardsley, Monroe C.  Aesthetics.  Indianapolis:  Hackett Publishing Co., Inc., 1981.

 

Berger, John.  About Looking.  London:  Writers and Readers, 1980.

 

---.  Ways of Seeing.  London:  Penguin Books, 1972.

 

Berleant, Arnold.  Art and Engagement.  Philadelphia:  Temple UP, 1991.

 

Bernstein, Roberta.  Jasper Johns' Paintings and Sculptures 1954-1974.  Ann Arbor:  UMI             Research P, 1975.

 

Bourdieu, Pierre.  Distinctions:  A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.  Cambridge,             Massachusetts: Harvard UP, 1984. 

 

Brilliant, Richard.  Portraiture.  Cambridge:  Harvard UP, 1991.

 

Cage, Timothy S.  "Frank O'Hara:  Poetry, Painting and Performance."  thesis, U of             North Carolina-CH, 1988.

 

---, and Lawrence Rosenfeld.  "Ekphrastic Poetry in Performance:  An Examination of             Audience Perceptions of the Relationship between Poetry and Painting."  Text and             Performance Quarterly  9.3 (1989): 199-206.

 

Carroll, Lewis.  Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking Glass.  New             York:  Bantam Books, 1981.

 

Castelli, Leo.  Jasper Johns:  35 Years.  New York:  Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1993. 

 

Castleman, Riva.  Jasper Johns:  A Print Retrospective.  New York:  Little, Brown and             Co., 1986.

 

Chadwick, Whitney.  Women, Art, and Society.  London:  Thames and Hudson, 1990.

 

Chipp, Hershel B.  Theories of Modern Art:  A Source Book by Artists and Critics.              Berkeley:  U of California P, 1968. 

 

Conquergood, Dwight.  "Poetics; Play, Process, and Power:  The Performative Turn in             Anthropology."  Text and Performance Quarterly  1 (1989): 82-95.

 

Couturier, Maurice, ed.  Representation and Performance in Postmodern Fiction.  Nice:              delta, 1982.

 

Crane, Hart.  Complete Poems of Hart Crane.  ed. Marc Simon.  New York:  Liveright,             1986.

 

Crary, Jonathan.  Techniques of the Observer.  Cambridge:  MIT P, 1991.

 

Crichton, Michael.  Jasper Johns.  New York:  Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1977.

 

Crimp, Douglas.  On the Museum's Ruins.  London:  MIT P, 1993. 

 

Cuno, James.  Fiorades/Fizzles:  Echo and Allusion in the Art of Jasper Johns.  Los             Angeles: Wight Art Gallery, 1987.

 

Dean, Alexander, and Lawrence Carra.  Fundamentals of Play Directing.  New York:              Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974. 

 

Derrida, Jacques.  Memoirs of the Blind.  Chicago:  U of Chicago P, 1993.

 

Des Pres, Terrence.  Writing into the World:  Essays 1973-1987.  New York: Viking,             1991.

 

Eagleton, Terry.  Marxism and Literary Criticism.  Berkeley:  U of California P, 1976.

 

Eco, Umberto.  The Open Work.  Cambridge:  Harvard UP, 1989.

 

Feinstein, Roni.  "Random Order:  The First Fifteen Years of Robert Rauschenberg's Art,             1949-1964."  DAI  51/05 (1990): 1422A.  New York U.

 

Fleming, Richard and William Duckworth.  John Cage at Seventy-Five.  Lewisberg:              Bucknell UP, 1989.

 

Foucault, Michel.  The Order of Things:  An Archaeology of the Human Sciences.  New             York:  Vintage Books, 1970.

 

Francis, Richard.  Jasper Johns.  New York:  Abbeville Press, 1984.

 

---, et al.  Dancers On a Plane:  Cage, Cunningham, Johns.  London:  Anthony d'Offay             Gallery, 1989.

 

Freedberg, David.  The Power of Images:  Studies in the History and Theory of Response.              Chicago:  U of Chicago P,  1989. 

 

Freedman, Diane P., Olivia Frey and Frances M. Zauhar.  Introduction.  The Intimate             Critique.  Eds.  Diane P. Freedman, Olivia Frey and Frances M. Zauhar.  Durham:              Duke UP, 1993.

 

Galizia, Luiz.  "Robert Wilson's Creative Process:  Whole Works of Art for the             Contemporary American Theatre."  DAI  42/01 (1980): 22A.  U of California,             Berkeley.

 

Gates, Henry Louis, Jr.  The Signifying Monkey.  New York:  Oxford UP, 1988.

 

Gena, Peter and Jonathan Brent.  A John Cage Reader.  New York:  C.F. Peters Co.,             1982.

 

Gibson, Ann.  "Painting:  the Ultimate Case of Monochrome."  Genders:  Art  Literature              Film  History.  13 (1992):  123-152.

 

Goldberg, RoseLee.  Performance Art:  From Futurism to the Present.  London:  Thames and      Hudson, 1988.

 

Gombrich, E.H.  Art and Illusion.  New Jersey:  Princeton UP, 1961.

 

---.  Meditations on a Hobby Horse:  And other essays on the theory of art.  London: 

            Phaidon Press Ltd., 1963.

 

Gusfield, Joseph R.  Introduction.  On Symbols and Society.  By Kenneth Burke.              Chicago:  U of Chicago P, 1989.

 

Hamera, Judith.  "On Reading, Writing, and Speaking the Politics of (self-) Re-            Presentation."  Text and Performance Quarterly  10 (1990): 235-247.

 

Herrigel, Eugen.  Zen in the Art of Archery.  New York:  Vintage Books, 1989.

 

Huet, Marie-Helene.  Monstrous Imagination.  Cambridge:  Harvard UP, 1993.

 

Heuvel, Michael Vandon.  Performing Drama/Dramatizing Performance:  Alternative             Theater and the Dramatic Text.  Ann Arbor:  U of Michigan P, 1993.

 

Irigaray, Luce. Sexes and Genealogies.  New York:  Columbia UP, 1987.

 

James, Carol P.  "'No, Says the Signified':  The 'Logical Status' of Words in Painting."              Visible-Language  19.4 (1985): 439-461.

 

Johns, Jasper.  Periscope (Hart Crane) (1963).  National Museum of American Art,             Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC.  Plate 105 of Jasper Johns.  By Michael             Crichton.  New York:  Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1977.

 

Johns, Jasper.  Painted Bronze (1960).  Collection of the artist.  Slide on p.31 of Jasper             Johns.  By Michael Crichton.  New York:  Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1977.

 

Kaye, Jon N.  "The Fine Artist's Use of Theatre Form Since 1945."  DAI  49/01 (1988):  4A.      U of Manchester.

 

Kleinau, Marion L., and Janet Larson McHughes.  Theatres for Literature:  A Practical             Aesthetics for Group Interpretation.  Sherman Oaks, CA:  Alfred Publishing Co.,             Inc., 1980.

 

Krauss, Rosalind.  "Jasper Johns."   Lugano Review. 2 (1965).  Found in Vertical    Files of National Collection of Fine Arts.

 

Kris, Ernst and Otto Kurz.  Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist.  New             Haven:  Yale UP, 1979.

 

Kristeva, Julia.  Desire in Language.  New York:  Columbia UP, 1980.

 

---.  The Kristeva Reader.  New York:  Columbia UP, 1986.   

 

Langer, Susanne K.  Feeling and Form.  New York:  Scribner's Sons, 1953.

 

---.  Philosophy in a New Key.  Cambridge:  Harvard UP, 1951.

 

Lehman, David.  Beyond Amazement.  Ithaca:  Cornell University Press, 1980.

 

Lentricchia, Frank and Thomas McLaughlin, eds.  Critical Terms for Literary Study.              Chicago:  U of Chicago P, 1987.

 

Long, Beverly Whitaker.  "Evaluating Performed Literature."  Studies in Interpretation.              vol. II.  Eds.  Esther M. Boyle and Virginia Hastings Floyd.  Amsterdam:  Rodopi,             1977.

 

---.  "Performance as Doing:  A Reconsideration of Evaluating Performed Literature."              Festschrift for Isabel Crouch:  Essays on the Theory, Practice, and Criticism of             Performance.  Ed.  Wallace A. Bacon.  New Mexico:  New Mexico State UP,             1987.

 

---.  "Performance Criticism and Questions of Value."  Text and Performance Quarterly  11             (1991): 106-115.

 

---, and Timothy S. Cage.  "Contemporary American Ekphrastic Poetry:  A Selected             Bibliography."  Text and Performance Quarterly  9 (1989): 286-297.

 

MacArthur, Charlotte Winburn.  "Portraitists In Performance - Four Women Originals             (Sacchetto; Germany:  Guilbert; France:  Draper, Enters; United States)."  DAI              45/04 (1983): 987A.  U of Pittsburgh.

 

Madison, D. Soyini.  "'That Was My Occupation':  Oral Narrative, Performance, and             Black Feminist Thought."  Text and Performance Quarterly  13(1993): 213-232.

 

Mair, Victor H.  Painting and Performance.  Hawaii:  U of Hawaii P, 1988.

 

Marin, Louis.  Utopics:  The Semiological Play of Textual Spaces.  New Jersey:  Humanities      Press International, 1984.

 

Martin, Steve, writer.  L. A. Story.  Dir. Mick Jackson.  Prods.  Daniel Melnick and             Michael Rachmil.  With Steve Martin, Victoria Tennant, Richard E. Grant and             Marilu Henner.  Carolco Pictures Inc., 1991. 

 

McLaughlin, Thomas.  "Introduction."  Critical Terms for Literary Study.  Eds. Frank             Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin.  Chicago:  U of Chicago P, 1987.

 

Melville, Stephen.  "Between Art and Criticism:  Mapping the Frame in United States."              Theater Journal  37.1 (1985): 31-43.

 

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice.  The Visible and the Invisible.  Evanston:  Northwestern UP,             1968.

 

Mitchell, W.J.T.  "Representation."  Critical Terms for Literary Study.  Eds. Frank             Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin.  Chicago:  U of Chicago P, 1987.

 

Museum Assistant of National Collection of Fine Arts.  Periscope (Hart Crane) 1963             Jasper Johns.  Found in Vertical Files of National Collection of Fine Arts.   

 

Nochlin, Linda.  The Politics of Vision.  New York:  Harper and Row, 1989.

 

Orton, Fred.  Figuring Jasper Johns.  Cambridge:  Harvard UP, 1994.

 

Panofsky, Erwin.  Perspective as Symbolic Form.  New York:  Zone Books, 1991.

 

Park-Fuller, Linda M., and Ronald J. Pelias.  "Charting Alernative Performance and             Evaluative Practices."  Communication Education.  44 (1995):  126-139. 

 

Phelan, Peggy.  Unmarked: The Politics of Performance.  New York:  Routledge, 1993.

 

Pollock, Della.  "Making History Go."  Exceptional Spaces:  Essays in Performance and             History.  Chapel Hill:  UNC Press, Forthcoming.

 

---.  "Telling the Told:  Performing Like a Family."  The Oral History Review.  18.2             (1991): 1-36.

 

Pollock, Griselda.  Avant-Garde Gambits  1888-1893.  New York:  Thames and Hudson,

            1992.

 

---.  Vision & Difference:  Femininity, Feminism and the Histories of Art.  New York:              Routledge, 1988. 

 

Press Information.  Jasper Johns. A Print Retrospective.  L.A. County Museum, Oct. 1,             1987.

 

Prinz, Jessica.  Art Discourse/Discourse in Art.  New Jersey:  Rutgers UP, 1991. 

 

Reinelt, Janelle G., and Joseph R. Roach, eds.  Critical Theory and Performance.  Ann             Arbor:  U of Michigan P, 1992.

 

Rodriguez, Richard. "Complexion."  Out There:  Marginalization and Contemporary             Cultures.  Eds.  Russell Ferguson et al.  New York:  The New Museum of             Contemporary Art, 1990.

 

Rosenthal, Mark.  Jasper Johns:  Work Since 1974.  Philadelphia:  Philadelphia Museum of         Art, 1988.    

 

---.  "Dancers on a Plane and other Stratagems for Inclusion in the Work of Jasper Johns."              Dancers on a Plane:  Cage, Cunningham, Johns.  Ed. Judy Adam.  London:              Anthony d'Offay Gallery, 1989.

 

Rosenthal, Nan and Ruth E. Fine.  The Drawings of Jasper Johns.  Washington, DC:              Thames and Hudson, 1990.

 

Sandler, Irving.  The New York School.  New York:  Harper & Row, 1978.

 

Sayre, Henry.  The Object of Performance.  Chicago:  U of Chicago P,  1989.

 

---.  "Performance."  Critical Terms for Literary Study.  Eds. Frank Lentricchia and             Thomas McLaughlin.  Chicago:  U of Chicago P, 1987.

 

Schieve, Catherine F.  "'Shading:'  A Music/Graphic Composition.  (Original Work)             (Notation, Score, Wind Instruments)."  DAI  45/06 (1984): 1570A.  U of California,             San Diego.

 

Schmitt, Natalie Crohn.  Actors and Onlookers:  Theater and Twentieth-Century Scientific             Views of Nature.  Evanston, Illinois:  Northwestern UP, 1990. 

 

Scholes, Robert.  Textual Power.  New Haven:  Yale UP, 1985.

 

Sellers, E. and K. Jex-Blake.  The Elder Pliny's Chapters on the History of Art.  Chicago:              Ares Publishers Inc., 1976.

 

Sedgwick, Eve K.  Tendencies.  Durham:  Duke UP, 1993.

 

Sherman, Daniel J., and Irit Rogoff.  Museum Culture:  Histories  Discourses  Spectacles.              Minneapolis:  U of Minnesota P, 1994. 

 

Silverman, Kaja.  The Acoustic Mirror:  The Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema.              Bloomington:  Indiana UP, 1988. 

 

Smith, Barbara Herrnstein.  Contingencies of Value.  Cambridge:  Harvard UP, 1988.

 

Sontag, Susan.  On Photography.  New York:  Anchor Books, 1989.

 

Stallybrass, Peter and Allon White.  The Politics & Poetics of Transgression.  New York:              Cornell UP, 1986. 

 

Staniszewski, Mary Anne.  Believing is Seeing:  Creating the Culture of Art.  New York:              Penguin, 1995.   

 

Steltz, Christiana T.  "Futurism:  Painting and Performance."  DAI 35/07 (1974): 4741A.              U of Washington.

 

Stern, Carol Simpson and Bruce Henderson.  Performance:  Texts and Contexts.  New             York:  Longman, 1993.

 

Strine, Mary S., Beverly Whitaker Long and Mary Frances HopKins.  "Research in             Interpretation and Performance Studies:  Trends, Issues, Priorities."  Speech             Communication:  Essays to Commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Speech             Communication Association.  Eds.  Gerard M. Phillips and Julia T. Wood.              Carbondale:  S Illinois UP, 1990.

 

Suleiman, Susan R., and Inge Crosman, eds.  The Reader in the Text.  New Jersey:              Princeton UP, 1980.

 

Taft-Kaufman, Jill.  "Oral Interpretation:  Twentieth-Century Theory and Practice."  Speech Communication in the 20th Century.  Ed.  Thomas W. Benson.         Carbondale:  S Illinois UP, 1985.

 

Tagg, John.  The Burden of Representation:  Essays on Photographies and Histories.              Minneapolis:  U of Minnesota P, 1988.

 

Tompkins, Jane P., ed.  Reader-Response Criticism.  Baltimore:  Johns Hopkins UP,             1980.

 

Valentine, Kristin.  "A Patterned Imagination:  William Morris' Use of Pattern in Decorative             Design and the Last Prose Romances."  Thesis.  U of Utah, 1974.

 

---.  "Readers Theatre Productions of Combined Arts:  The Pre-Raphaelite Paradigm."              Western Journal of Speech Communication.  41.2 (1977): 98-109.

 

Walker, John.  "Hogarth's Painting 'The Beggar's Opera':  Cast and Audience at the First             Night."  Essays in Honor of Paul Mellon:  Collector and Benefactor.  Ed.  John             Wilmerding.  Wash. DC:  National Gallery of Art, 1986.

 

Wardle, Irving.  theatre criticism.  New York:  Rouledge, 1992.

 

Wolfe, Tom.  The Painted Word.  New York:  Bantam Books, 1975. 

 

Wolff, Janet.  Aesthetics and the Sociology of Art.  Boston:  George Allen & Unwin,             1983.

 

Wollheim, Richard.  Art and Its Objects.  London:  Cambridge UP, 1980. 

 

Young, Jordan R.  Acting Solo.  Beverly Hills:  Moonstone Press, 1989.

 

Zweig, Ellen M.  "Performance Poetry:  Critical Approaches to Contemporary Intermedia."              DAI  41/02 (1980): 661A.  U of Michigan.

 

 

 


 

| drew davidson |