Read the instructor’s introduction<\/a> If you were to stare into the eyes of a complete stranger for a long time, would you expect to be emotionally broken? Performance artist Marina Abramovic creates this scenario in her piece \u201cThe Artist Is Present,\u201d which takes place at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. One at a time, she invites strangers to sit across from her and stare into her eyes for as long as they please. Often times, people start to cry and become overwhelmed. How could performing such a simple act elicit such a strong emotional response? Anne Bogart, Artistic Director of SITI Company, provides a useful voice to answer this question. She offers two pieces that examine the aspects of theatrical performance: \u201cTime\u201d and \u201cMagnetism.\u201d \u201cTime\u201d examines how altering the time frame of a performance can produce different results. Taking this into consideration, Abramovic stares at strangers for seven hours a day for three months, and the audience often participates for long periods at a time. The minuscule action involved in her performance contrasts with its lengthy time span, and I hypothesize that this long time span contributes to the audiences\u2019 emotional response. Additionally, \u201cMagnetism\u201d examines the effects of the performer and audiences\u2019 shared empathy for one another. This \u201chuman heartbeat\u201d\u2014in other words, shared humanity\u2014creates vulnerability, allowing for a more \u201cpersonal and intimate\u201d experience of the performance (Bogart 65). Moreover, the vulnerability created by Abramovic in her audience allows her to reveal suppressed sadness within the participant. Although Bogart\u2019s pieces involve theatre rather than performance art, they share a \u201cperforming\u201d aspect; thus, their sources are useful for examining Abramovic\u2019s performance. Lastly, American philosopher and gender theorist Judith Butler offers an essay written in 1988 called \u201cPerformative Acts and Gender Constitution\u201d explaining that gender is an ever-changing social construction of the way we act (Butler 531). According to Butler, a woman (in this case Abramovic) is seen by society as having maternal characteristics: to what extent does this affect the way people react to her presence? The goal of this essay is to examine these aspects\u2014vulnerability, time, and gender\u2014and consider which elements of Abramovic\u2019s performance contribute most directly to the audience\u2019s emotional response.<\/p>\n Abramovic\u2019s Use of Time Contrast<\/strong><\/p>\n According to Bogart, time is a tool used to control how an audience perceives a performance, which exposes Abramovic\u2019s use of time to affect her subjects.\u00a0 Bogart uses an anecdote in which a Swiss geologist examined the mental states of several people who had experienced near-death falls in the Alps. She notes that \u201cmental activity became enormous, rising to hundred-fold velocity. Time became greatly expanded\u201d (128). In the context of a near-death experience, peoples\u2019 thoughts race because of a natural human reaction to the situation. Normally, people fail to think at this pace; however, the context of the situation causes time to be perceived<\/em> as expanded because an abundance of thought takes place relative to a short time span. Taking this into consideration, the opposite is true: the performer can use time to change the context of a situation. This scenario can be true in non-near-death experiences, but on an intentional artistic level. Abramovic does so in \u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d when she slows down time by incorporating very little interaction into a long time span. Director Robert Wilson can relate: \u201cIn my pieces everything is slowed down. If it\u2019s going to take me five minutes to pick up a spoon, first of all it\u2019s going to be painful just to control it. But what happens to with my awareness of my body as I do it?\u201d (qtd. in Bogart 133). According to Wilson, your body naturally analyzes actions in \u201creal\u201d time; when you slow down your regular actions to a much longer time scale, you have more time to analyze everything that occurs in that moment, including your own thought process. Picking up a spoon normally takes a short moment, but stretching this action out to five minutes exponentially increases your awareness of the action. Further, when the audience member participates in Abramovic\u2019s long performance, she has time to metacognitively reflect on her actions and environment, enabling an altered perception of the act. Abramovic controls her audience in this manner by contrasting time length with size of interaction. Later on, we will directly examine to what extent this time scale elicits an emotional response in the participant.<\/p>\n Returning to the aspect of time, Abramovic\u2019s lengthy performance allows the audience member enough time to \u201csink in\u201d to the performance and become vulnerable to Abramovic\u2019s silent examination. Let us first examine the length of the performance. The audience members ultimately decide how long to stay, because they can walk away whenever they please; however, more people decide to sit for a long time. One audience member commented, \u201cshe slows everybody\u2019s brain down, she asks us to stay there for quite a length of time . . . she transforms us as a result\u201d (\u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d<\/em>). Abramovic never asks anyone to stay for any length of time, but we can see that this audience member believes so; because of this, we see an established connection between Abramovic and her audience. During this length of time, she \u201cslows down\u201d the brain by creating a contrast between time and interaction. Remember Robert Wilson\u2019s comment about spending five minutes to pick up a spoon? Bogart would argue that this contrast between time span and interaction allows for one\u2019s thoughts to race at said \u201cten-fold velocity.\u201d An eleven year-old boy described his experience with mysterious nostalgia: \u201cIt\u2019s like some other world . . . and time flies quicker\u201d (\u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d<\/em>). Judging by this, the \u201cother world\u201d must be a state of consciousness created by the performance\u2019s length of time. After a while, the audience enters this state of mind where thoughts at ten-fold velocity occur. Due to Abramovic\u2019s silent examinations and eye contact, the audience becomes vulnerable.<\/p>\n Empathy and Vulnerability<\/strong><\/p>\n Additionally, the empathy shared between the performer and audience reveals how Abramovic\u2019s audience is left vulnerable by her stare. In \u201cMagnetism,\u201d Bogart explains that a performance becomes attractive when it exhibits characteristics with which the audience can identify. Commenting on how the audience identifies with a performance, Bogart writes, \u201cthe human heartbeat serves as the red thread through any theatrical labyrinth and will lead to the vulnerability at center of the event\u201d (65). In other words, even the most complicated performance\u2014the \u201ctheatrical labyrinth\u201d\u2014exhibits the characteristic of human nature (i.e. the human heartbeat) to which the audience can relate. According to Bogart, because of the shared humanity between performer and audience, vulnerability surrounds the performance; the audience member begins to carry out self-reflection when she sees this commonality in the performance. In the case of \u201cThe Artist Is Present,\u201d because the audience member can only think in the given situation, she may be wondering about Abramovic\u2019s thoughts too, which leaves her subject to Abramovic\u2019s silent examination. We will later examine the extent to which this \u201csilent examination,\u201d combined with the observer\u2019s vulnerability, emotionally affects the audience.<\/p>\n Abramovic\u2019s use of time sets the stage for vulnerability, resulting in pain within the audience members. The contrast between time span and interaction creates the \u201cmental zone\u201d in which thoughts at ten-fold velocities occur. In addition, Bogart would argue that the humanity shared between Abramovic and the audience creates an unspoken empathy \u201cwhich leads to vulnerability at the center of the event\u201d (65). The act is so simple that the audience has the time to analyze its simplicity: we are both here, and we are both human; we share that with each other. The performance creates vulnerability because hiding behind anything is impossible, especially physically. In fact, set design removed the table that was originally present between Abramovic and her audience to increase this vulnerability factor. The curator of \u201cThe Artist is Present,\u201d Klaus Biesenbach, commented that the lack of the table makes Abramovic much more vulnerable and \u201cmakes her very unprotected . . . but it heightens the seriousness\u2026and the severe nature of the piece\u201d (\u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d<\/em>). The woeful reactions of sobbing audience members elucidate this seriousness and severe nature. These reactions almost always consist of the audience beginning to shed tears, while maintaining the stare with Abramovic the entire time (\u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d<\/em>). Further, prolonged eye contact causes vulnerability; one audience member commented that eye contact is strange because \u201cmost of us are afraid of it and Marina is offering it infinitely\u201d (\u201cThe Artist is Present\u201d<\/em>). Humans avoid eye contact, but this performance is based around it, thus causing the audience to become vulnerable. The audience as well as Abramovic accept this vulnerability. The unavoidable silent examination then creates the window for an emotional response to occur. Abramovic offers another point of view: \u201cthey\u2019re sitting there; I\u2019m just a mirror of their own self\u201d (\u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d<\/em>). The audience members subconsciously analyze their own thoughts and feelings (the metacognitive process that Bogart mentions, expressed earlier) all while having to maintain the stare of vulnerability. As a result, people often become overwhelmed by their own painful feelings. Abramovic sympathizes, \u201cSome of them are really open to feel incredible pain. Some of them have so much pain\u201d (\u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d<\/em>). She consequently tries to stay open to feel incredible pain because openness comes from the willingness of the participant, thus creating vulnerability within the scenario. Bogart believes that this ability consequently allows one to identify and understand another person\u2019s emotions (65). The vulnerability of the participant proves integral in the emotional response of the participant, but could not exist without Abramovic\u2019s creative use of contrasting time span with minimal interaction.<\/p>\n Does Gender Affect an Audience\u2019s Perception?<\/strong><\/p>\n Aside from the performance\u2019s direct components of time manipulation and vulnerability, the factor of gender is another debatable force that affects the performance\u2019s effect on its audience. Gender theorist Judith Butler argues that gender is a social construction, which sheds light on how Abramovic\u2019s womanhood affects her audiences\u2019 perception of \u201cThe Artist Is Present.\u201d In \u201cPerformative Acts and Gender Construction,\u201d Butler explains that we construct gender through a \u201cstylized repetition of acts\u201d that conforms to how society<\/em> views those acts with respect to the male or female category (519). She further begins to explain that the body is the stylized medium, and that \u201cthe body is not self-identical or merely factic materiality; it is a materiality that bears meaning . . . and the manner of this bearing is fundamentally dramatic\u201d (521). The manner of the body\u2019s materiality being fundamentally \u201cdramatic\u201d expresses that what we put on socially, mentally, and physically constructs a gender. In other words, the way we present ourselves externally points to our constructed genders. Simply put, we construct gender through expression and do not create this characteristic at birth. As Simone de Beauvoir claims, “one is not born, but, rather, becomes<\/em> a woman\u201d (qtd. in Butler 519). People become women through the stylized repetition of \u201cwomanly\u201d acts. We can easily categorize \u201cwomanly acts\u201d because we construct them as a society. Using gender as a lens through which to examine \u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d proves especially useful because Abramovic uses the body as a medium for her performance act, and Butler depends on the body as a central aspect of her argument. Later, we will analyze how Abramovic\u2019s gender contributes to how the audience receives her performance.<\/p>\n In addition, the extent that Abramovic\u2019s womanliness affects the audience and elicits an emotional response must be determined. When you put yourself in the position of the audience, you are sitting across from a woman, and that is the extent of the sexuality you encounter throughout the piece. Does sitting across from what society views as a maternal figure cause people to seek compassion for their inner pain? I ask this because oftentimes, society regards women as more caring and compassionate than men. In addition to arguing that gender is a social construction, gender theorist Judith Butler argues, \u201cTo be female is[\u2026] a facticity which has no meaning, but to be a woman is to have become<\/em> a woman, to compel the body to conform to an historical idea of \u2018woman,\u2019 to induce the body to become a cultural sign\u201d (522). What Butler means is that to be a woman, one must externally display womanly characteristics and act like a woman in society would act. In \u201cThe Artist Is Present,\u201d Abramovic is better characterized as a female than a woman because she does not act in any womanly way that abides by womanly social constructs. Staring and sitting in a chair\u2014the only action taken by Abramovic\u2014can be performed by both men and<\/em> women. Although audience members can see Abramovic\u2019s womanly stylization of the body, they cannot fully regard her as a woman due to the lack of stylized repetition of acts<\/em> that constitute her womanhood (Butler 519). Even then, her stylization of the body involves dressing in a robe much like a monk would, which makes her seem even less \u201cwomanly\u201d (\u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d<\/em>). Because the audience cannot identify womanhood with Abramovic directly with respect to her actions, the audience is likely to not seek compassion in the performer and emotionally respond directly due to gender. Therefore, with regards to causing an emotional response in the audience, gender does not affect the audience in comparison to time and vulnerability, which work together.<\/p>\n Although we have deduced that both time and vulnerability contribute more exactly to emotional response than gender, we must consider how gender is perhaps a directly contributing factor. For example, what if Abramovic were a man? To understand the significance of this question, let\u2019s turn to Judith Butler and her notion of gender. By man, I mean holding the external characteristics of what society views as a \u201cmanly\u201d man: for example, a chiseled jaw or rugged beard. I deduce that one is less likely to break down in front of a man because society sees this as a sign of weakness. People in general are more likely to become vulnerable in the presence of a woman because of the \u201chistorical idea\u201d that women are caring and motherly figures in society. So what if a \u201cmanly\u201d male is the performer? Anthropologist Victor Turner argues that gender is a \u201csocial action [that] requires a performance which is repeated<\/em>\u201d (qtd. in Butler 526). While this is agreeable with Butler\u2019s argument, there is no gendered \u201cact\u201d that takes place in \u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d because the act is not associated with a repeated social norm with respect to a certain gender. In fact, Abramovic\u2019s ex-lover, Ulay, (Frank Uwe Laysiepen) sits across from Abramovic, and they both begin to sob and reach for each other\u2019s hands after some time (\u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d<\/em>). We have both genders present in this situation that emotionally react to the performance; therefore, there is little possibility of gender having a substantial effect on the vulnerability and thus emotional response of the audience because the act itself is not gendered. However, if the act were to be changed, perhaps if Abramovic were nude for the performance, one would be more aware of her womanly \u201cstylization of the body\u201d that Butler argues constitutes genderization. Even then, the maximum effects of gender are only yielded when the act itself has characteristics of a historically constructed gender; therefore, in the case of \u201cThe Artist Is Present,\u201d gender\u2019s effects are incomparable to vulnerability and time contrast. With regards to this, one cannot argue that vulnerability causes these responses, as throughout \u201cThe Artist Is Present,\u201d people break down during longer performances, and the time contrast<\/em> is what causes the metacognitive thought process leading to vulnerability<\/em>, allowing for a self-reflective thought process in the presence of Abramovic.<\/p>\n We have concluded that out of three aspects of Abramovic\u2019s performance\u2014time contrast, vulnerability, and gender\u2014time contrast and vulnerability contribute most directly to the emotional responses that occur during \u201cThe Artist Is Present.\u201d The fact that such a simple act of observing one another in silence can elucidate deep emotional reaction is shocking, but is logically explained when one examines the contrast of how long the actual performance can be and how little physically occurs; self-reflection occurs rapidly, empathy shared between performer and audience causes vulnerability, and Abramovic acts as a \u201cmirror\u201d of the subject\u2019s pain to him or her self. One may consider that the audience may be more inclined to seek compassion in Abramovic due to her gender; however, Butler\u2019s argument about how we construct gender counters the fact, because Abramovic\u2019s act is gender-neutral. What if we consider Abramovic\u2019s previous performances and her use of stylization of the body? Abramovic would often appear nude in her performances, using her body as a medium for self-inflicted pain; however, \u201cThe Artist Is Present\u201d is different because although she uses her body as a medium for the act, the act is relatively \u201cgenderless,\u201d whereas in previous performances, the nudity would have clear implications that surrounded gender as the body is exposed in its purest form. What could Abramovic be saying about gender by straying from her usual gendered appearance in her performance art? Perhaps she is denying the importance of gender in performance art and in life by constructing a gender-neutral act. Regardless of her intentions, we cannot completely discard gender as a contributing factor of human interaction. For example, men often hold the door for women as a sign of gender courtesy. How could one ignore Abramovic\u2019s beautiful womanly face, her long black hair? Perhaps our perceptions are a bit altered despite our ignorance. Nevertheless, Abramovic\u2019s strong use of time and vulnerability as tools in performance art overshadow gender, evoking a powerful response in her audience during \u201cThe Artist Is Present.\u201d<\/p>\n Bogart, Anne. “Magnetism.” And Then, You Act: Making Art in an Unpredictable World<\/em>. New York: Routledge, 2007. 65. Print.<\/p>\n Bogart, Anne. “Time.” And Then, You Act: Making Art in an Unpredictable World<\/em>. New York: Routledge, 2007. 128\u201333. Print.<\/p>\n Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal<\/em> 40.4 (1988): 519\u201322. JSTOR<\/em>. Web. 29 Nov. 2013.<\/p>\n Marina Abramovic: \u201cThe Artist Is Present.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0Dir. Matthew Akers and Jeff Dupre. Perf. Marina Abramovic. HBO, 2012. DVD.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ryan Lader Read the instructor’s introduction Read the writer’s comments and bio Download this essay If you were to stare into the eyes of a complete stranger for a long time, would you expect to be emotionally broken? Performance artist Marina Abramovic creates this scenario in her piece \u201cThe Artist Is Present,\u201d which takes place […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4801,"featured_media":0,"parent":8199,"menu_order":6,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8218"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4801"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8218"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8218\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8947,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8218\/revisions\/8947"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8199"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nRead the writer’s comments and bio<\/a>
\nDownload this essay<\/a><\/p>\nWorks Cited<\/h2>\n