Monday, October 28, 2013

House/ Lights and To You the Birdie

I was captivated by the idea of experimenting, seeing and feeling how a group of actors would  interpret a Picasso's painting though their performances. That is how Bent Brantley described "House/Lights,"  like Cubism on canvas, or a piece of moving collage realized by the Wooster Group.
In this performance, characters and happenings are amplified through the use of lights, devices, opera music, distortion of voices and television screens. Suddenly, the scenario becomes a place of surprising events, where performers and objects move constantly, and where those actions overlap with movies that are projected on televisions and large screens.

The Wooster Group present their own theatrical vision that challenges the expectations of viewers. In "To You The Birdie" for example, rackets, men, skirts and funny sounds create a bizarre atmosphere that is enjoyable to the eyes and the senses. The Wooster Group is unique in its performances and communicates its art effectively. The theatrical representations are out of the ordinary, and that coexist in total harmony with the arrangements of sound, lights, microphones and movies projected on scene.





A Case For Cubism And Deals With Devils
By BEN BRANTLEY
Gertrude Stein was right, after all. So it would seem, in any case, from the testimony provided in the bedazzling new theater piece from the Wooster Group, ''House/Lights.''
This multimedia collage, inspired by Stein's opera libretto of 1938, ''Dr. Faustus Lights the Lights,'' makes nothing less than a case for Cubism, which Stein famously advocated as a patron of painters and practiced as a writer, as the dominant sensibility of this century. It's the perfect show to see in 1999, finding in the prophecies of artists of decades ago the disjunctive present in which we now live.
Gertrude Stein was right, after all. So it would seem, in any case, from the testimony provided in the bedazzling new theater piece from the Wooster Group, ''House/Lights.''
This multimedia collage, inspired by Stein's opera libretto of 1938, ''Dr. Faustus Lights the Lights,'' makes nothing less than a case for Cubism, which Stein famously advocated as a patron of painters and practiced as a writer, as the dominant sensibility of this century. It's the perfect show to see in 1999, finding in the prophecies of artists of decades ago the disjunctive present in which we now live.
Hold the groans, please, and the dismissive rolling of the eyes. While the intellectual ambitions of ''House/Lights,'' now in an open-ended run at the Performing Garage in SoHo, may be arrogantly grand, there is nothing dry or academic in the experience of the show. As a mind- scrambling entertainment, there's nothing else like it around; it turns disorientation into a primary sensual pleasure, even as it raises terrifying thoughts about the deeply mixed blessings of technological progress.
Through the use of the latest tools of that technology, the Wooster Group has assembled a portrait, both fractured and fluid, of a world in which any set sense of chronology, culture or identity can no longer be taken for granted.
That's the Faustian bargain that Stein deals with, in her typically elliptical way, in her original text, in which the Faust figure is the inventor of artificial light, altering forever the natural order
of time. Under the incisive, spectacularly resourceful direction of Elizabeth LeCompte, that text acquires at least another 60 years' worth of levels of displacement.
Live performance is juxtaposed with what emerges from an assortment of television screens that record, splinter and transform what is happening onstage until you're no longer sure which image has the greatest reality. Voices, too, are mechanically distorted and fragmented. What is the source of what you're hearing? (Since this sort of aural confusion is now an unwanted commonplace in overmiked Broadway musicals, it is especially gratifying to find the Wooster Group making sardonic use of the same phenomenon.) Stein wrote that movies would change forever the very way we look at things. Ms. LeCompte makes it clear that this was just the beginning. Jim Findlay's metal grid of a set features, in addition to phalanxes of video screens and assorted electric bulbs (the uncanny lighting is by Jennifer Tipton), a laptop computer at center stage. And in the evening's master of ceremonies, the magnificent Kate Valk, we have a creature of astonishing artificiality, a tin-voiced 1930's-style beauty with marcelled hair and bee- stung lips who might be a digitally manufactured composite of movie stars. She's the ultimate screen siren, happiest in two dimensions.
There is something unnervingly languorous about Ms. Valk's presence, even as she adjusts microphones, angles herself for yet another small-screen close-up and goes through some frenetically choreographed pantomimes. She suggests a centuries-old vampire prostitute, tired of turning tricks but still amazingly proficient at doing so. She may not look like Faustus, the role the program says she is playing, but she is clearly someone (or is it something?) who has sold her soul, or lost it, a long time ago.
It is to Ms. Valk that the principal duties of reading Stein's text fall, including narrative, song lyrics and stage directions. (In reading ''Dr. Faustus,'' it's not always clear which of these elements is which.) Her rushed, mechanical, Betty Boop-ish voice, swathed in synthesizer- induced reverberations, oddly matches the neutrality that Stein aimed for in her cadenced, repetitious prose. (Quick sample: ''You fool you devil how can you know, you can you tell me so, if I am the only who can know what I know then no devil can tell me so. . . .'')
Ms. Valk is clearly the (oops, I was about to say soul) center of the evening, but it is impossible, as in all Wooster Group productions, to disassociate her from the other performers. Here they include Suzzy Roche, looking like someone who never left the Electric Circus, as a snaggle- toothed Mephistopheles; gray-haired Roy Faudree as the Boy who visits Faustus and Ari Fliakos as Faustus's dog, who says nothing but ''thank you'' in a raspy, hung-over-sounding voice. Both Tanya Selvaratnam and Helen Eve Pickett play the Marguerite figure, who is given two separate names in Stein's text.
This fission of character is typical of the evening. In addition to telling the story of Faust according to Stein, ''House/Lights'' weaves in the plot of ''Olga's House of Shame,'' a 1964 cult film by Joseph Mawra. It's like a seedier, more sinister version of a Roger Corman movie, with buxom and studly jewel thieves inflicting all manner of sexual torture upon one another. (It also involves the initiation of a young woman into this ring of sadism, so there is a Faustian parallel of sorts.)
The live ensemble acts out the scenes from the movie that are concurrently being shown on the video screens. Sometimes the simulcast images from the stage bleed into those of the film; at other moments, snippets of other movies, from Busby Berkeley spectacles to Mel Brooks's ''Young Frankenstein.'' (The video collages are the astonishing work of Philip Bussmann.)
You'll have to trust me when I say that there is nothing random-feeling about this mixture of elements, which also feature danced segments that seem choreographed by a tornado but are actually the work of Trisha Brown and Ms. Pickett. (The music is by Hans Peter Kuhn.) The performers and the technical team, which includes the sound designers James (J .J.) Johnson and John Collins and the costume designer Elizabeth Jenyon, work as if they had all been generated by the same computer program. Everything in ''House/ Lights'' seems to ricochet and echo off everything else.
It also never loses sight of the idea of the increasing uncertainty of identity in the modern age, a theme that fascinated Stein, especially after she achieved worldwide fame with ''The Autobiograpy of Alice B. Toklas.'' The ways in which ''House/Lights'' carries out the confusion of flesh and technology, of self and the projected image, are often breathtaking.
One thinks, particularly, of Ms. Valk running a finger across her lips, while at the same time the mouth turns red on the black-and-white image of her face on the screens. There is also the moment when the physical gyrations of Ms. Valk and Mr. Faudree, acting out a sex scene from ''Olga's House of Shame,'' are caught (and utterly desexualized) in the overamplified sounds of cloth rubbing against cloth.
There is a splendid sequence in which Ms. Valk prepares a serpent for its big scene in the Faust play. The serpent is a microphone wearing a mask, with the voice of a boozed-out, aging stand- up comic (provided by Mr. Collins). Though the evening, which runs about 90 minutes, is intermissionless, it does adhere to Stein's given structure of five acts. The divisions are signaled by the image of a red curtain falling on each of the video screens.
In the past, the Wooster Group has mostly used its deconstructive tools on familiar classics, like O'Neill's ''Hairy Ape'' and ''Emperor Jones'' and Chekhov's ''Three Sisters.'' Frankly, the idea of this troupe's taking on Stein seemed to promise an evening of the obscure leading the obscure. This simply isn't the case.
Stein's reputation, of course, has never been universally solid. There are still many who regard her as the ultimate intellectual fraud. ''A cold, black suet pudding,'' was how Wyndham Lewis described her writing. ''All fat, without nerve.''
Similarly, accusations of arty, posturing pretentiousness have habitually dogged the Wooster Group. In asking us to listen anew to Stein, to something other than ''rose is a rose is a rose,'' this company illuminates what remains enduringly relevant in Stein's voice while confirming the troupe itself as part of an intellectual continuum that began in the age of Picasso. The world that ''House/ Lights'' portrays may be in atomistic shards, but there's a strangely comforting wholeness in this century-enfolding symmetry.
HOUSE/LIGHTS
A work by the Wooster Group based on Gertrude Stein's ''Doctor Faustus Lights the Lights.'' Directed by Elizabeth LeCompte; sound by James (J. J.) Johnson and John Collins; sets by Jim Findlay; video, Philip Bussmann; lighting by Jennifer Tipton; costumes by Elizabeth Jenyon; music by Hans Peter Kuhn; assistant to the director/stage manager, Clay Hapaz. Presented by the Wooster Group. At 33 Wooster Street, SoHo.
WITH: Kate Valk (Faustus/Elaine), Suzzy Roche (Mephistopheles/Olga), Roy Faudree (Boy/Nick), Ari Fliakos (Dog/Johnny), Tanya Selvaratnam (Christine/Nadja), Helen Eve Pickett (Susie/Ellie), Sheena See (Holly/ Jenny) and John Collins (Mr. Viper).
Copyright 2013 The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
February 19, 2002, Tuesday
THEATER REVIEW; Racine's Pale Queen, Struggling With Racket Sports
By BEN BRANTLEY
Her majesty is a royal train wreck. Oh, sure, she's kind of pretty in her pasty, anemic way. But she is as weak as she is pale.
Why, she can't dress herself, or feed herself, or even go to the bathroom without elaborate help. And she is no good at all at the games she has to play: politics, love, badminton (yes, badminton). This babe may be highborn, but she is also born to lose.
Her majesty is a royal train wreck. Oh, sure, she's kind of pretty in her pasty, anemic way. But she is as weak as she is pale.
Why, she can't dress herself, or feed herself, or even go to the bathroom without elaborate help. And she is no good at all at the games she has to play: politics, love, badminton (yes, badminton). This babe may be highborn, but she is also born to lose.
Phèdre, the tortured queen who gave lovesickness new meaning, has probably never looked sicker than she does in the Wooster Group's exhilarating dissection of Racine's tragedy, here retitled ''To You, the Birdie!,'' at St. Ann's Warehouse in Brooklyn.
True, when the legendary Rachel stormed through the part in Paris in the 1800's, she was described as ''an awful, ghastly apparition'' perched ''on the verge of the grave.'' But Rachel's Phèdre would probably come across as a strapping milkmaid if she had to stand next to Kate Valk in the same role. It is unlikely, for example, that Rachel's Phèdre required the simulated administering of enemas onstage.
Don't gag just yet. Elizabeth LeCompte, the Wooster Group's artistic director, and Ms. Valk, its dazzlingly accomplished leading lady, have come up with an inspired diagnostic portrait of Racine's most miserable heroine. At the same time, the very form of Racine's play and the culture from which it emerged undergo serious exploratory surgery.
This being the Wooster Group, the surgical tools belong to both 21st-century technology and traditions as old as Kabuki. This isn't just postmodern riffing, though. Ms. LeCompte and company (including the Frances McDormand and Willem Dafoe) have taken ''Phèdre'' apart the better to see it as a whole. And they make you think about a stately classic in entirely new and surprisingly logical ways.
Scholars have long debated whether Phèdre is the victim of cruel destiny or sinful lust. ''To You, the Birdie!'' suggests that she suffers just as much from centuries of dynastic inbreeding and the cosseting that royalty was afforded in the age of Racine.
This Phèdre is not used to doing things for herself, any more than Louis XIV was. Both neurasthenic and pneumatic in her corseted top, she has a retinue to dress her, to walk her, to feed her (in this version, with a giant eyedropper). Even her warrior husband, the mighty Theseus (the mighty Mr. Dafoe), is sort of cranked into position by massaging minions.
In this context, Phèdre's helplessness at expressing her love to her stepson, Hippolytos (Ari Fliakos), assumes new dimensions. And her pragmatic nurse, Oenone (Ms. McDormand), is of necessity more manipulative than ever.
''Birdie'' hews more closely to its source than most Wooster productions do. (The simplified, condensed adaptation is by Paul Schmidt.) Then again, badminton, to my knowledge, has never before figured prominently in ''Phèdre.''
The game here becomes a multifaceted metaphor: for the formality of the play, the ritualized nature of courtly society and that big, nobody-wins sport called love. (''To you, the birdie'' is a literal translation of a French phrase spoken during badminton games.)
A severely elegant Venus (played by both Suzzy Roche and Fiona Leaning) holds vigil on the sidelines, making calls (''fault,'' ''let'') in a cold, mechanically amplified voice, which also lets the audience know that doom is around the corner.
How the characters play badminton becomes a prophecy of how they will play out their lives. Hippolytos is too easily rattled and keeps throwing down his racket. Theseus spikes the birdie with an angry, military hand. Poor Phèdre can't even lift the racket.
If the badminton conceit were all there was, ''Birdie'' would be too precious by half. Mercifully, Ms. LeCompte, her performers and her wizardly technicians make it clear that there is much more on their minds.
The displacing use of technology, a staple of Wooster productions, here suggests everything from the self-alienating effects of passion to the ways Baroque-era France looked at classical Greece. And, not incidentally, the ways the 21st century looks at both.
Scott Shepherd, who plays Hippolytos's best friend, doubles as a reader, whose voice (both live and recorded) articulates Phèdre's tormented thoughts in deadpan style. Jim Findlay's set is segmented by transparent, mobile walls, further divided by Jennifer Tipton's lighting.
Videotape is shown on a screen that covers the lower parts of the performers' bodies, dividing characters into flesh and image. Human torsos appear to morph into marble torsos. The sound effects include literal-minded bird songs as the badminton birdies fly and mocking Ronettes-style love ditties as Phèdre ponders her fate.
The overall effect is of a gleeful latter-day answer to Baroque trompe l'oeil, and it feeds into the pervasive theme of intersections and collisions: of different time periods and cultures; of aggrandizing myth and diminishing physical reality; of public persons and private passions.
No one, of course, can be very private in the world of ''Birdie,'' with all those courtiers hanging around. These assistants, you should know, spend a lot of time helping Phèdre evacuate her bowels. Potty wheelchairs are always at the ready, as are enema sacks with long, snakelike tubes.
These elements, presented with ritualized matter-of-factness, have a definite purpose. In Racine's original text, Phèdre is forever talking about the disastrous effects of illicit passion on her innards. ''Birdie'' takes her at her word.
The game and talented Ms. McDormand, an Oscar winner for ''Fargo'' and a relative newcomer to the Wooster Group, hasn't quite caught on to the house style of dissociation. You can sense her struggling to repress the urge to act naturally. But Mr. Fliakos and Mr. Shepherd, as young specimens of neo-Classical manhood, already have the troupe's uniquely artificial rhythms down pat.
It's especially fun to watch Mr. Fliakos's Hippolytos as he tentatively strikes the Olympian poses of classical statues. In delightful contrast, there is Mr. Dafoe's Theseus, who takes the stage posturing like Mr. Universe and calling out, in a deflatingly nasal voice, ''Look at this!'' Mr. Dafoe, a founding member of the Wooster Group, is clearly a master of the stylistically mixed message.
So, of course, is Ms. Valk, who gives a performance of astonishing precision and intelligence. This Phèdre is a fluttery, drunken moth, so addled in her lust that she doesn't always know where to focus it.
She finds an authoritative voice only in yelling orders, usually for something like a new piece of clothing to try on. This pathetic creature has been so overbred she's barely human anymore. As Ms. Valk plays her, she is a walking -- or rather stumbling -- justification for the French Revolution.
TO YOU, THE BIRDIE! (PHÈDRE)
The Wooster Group's production, based on Paul Schmidt's translation of Racine's ''Phèdre.'' Directed by Elizabeth LeCompte; sets by Jim Findlay; sound by John Collins, Geoff Abbas and Jim Dawson; video by Phillip Bussmann; lighting by Jennifer Tipton; original music tracks by David Linton; costumes by the Wooster Group with Elizabeth Jenyon; assistant costumes/video, Tara Webb; assistant director, Richard Kimmel; technical director, Iver Findlay. At St. Ann's Warehouse, 38 Water Street, corner of Dock Street, Brooklyn.
WITH: Frances McDormand (Oenone), Kate Valk (Phèdre), Willem Dafoe (Theseus), Ari Fliakos (Hippolytos), Scott Shepherd (Theramenes/Reader), Suzzy Roche/Fiona Leaning (Venus/Referee), Koosil-ja Hwang (Marker 7) and Dominique Bousquet (Marker 4).

Guillermo Gomez Peña

Guillermo Gomez Peña effectively accomplishes his mission of challenging the views and perceptions of the public opinion, regarding some misunderstood ideas of Latino's cultural identity and backwardness. This contemporary artist uses the internet as a medium to present polemic writings and performances, in which satire addresses the "gringos'" superiority, sophistication and vanguardism, and that is contrasted with the notion that Mexicans are a primitive race characterized by slow progress.

Peña seems to be bothered by the fact that Native Americans not only were colonized by new settlers, and were subjected to genocide  and displacement. Native Americans also have been disrespected by "gringos" trhough their  whole history and evolution. And even today, in the Century Twenty-one, Native Americans, Mexicans, "Chicanos" and Latinos are being suppressed by the mentality imposed by the elite classes of the Anglo society.

In "The virtual Barrio@ The Other Frontier," Peña explains that in this new era of communication "there is a mythology that states that Mexicans and Latinos are not able to utilize technology." Peña insists that this idea conceives the same stereotyped form of labeling Mexicans and Latinos as individuals who lack intelligence and sophistication. Moreover, Mexicans and Latinos are portrayed as passive consumers, and fully dependents of the progress of the Anglo society.

Similarly, Peña argues that "there is a new border ,were the new 'migra' limits the access of Mexicans and Latinos to the the cyber space."  Corporations who own social networks and who manage information worldwide, apparently seem to establish the same stereotyped notions of social class and inferior races along the network, limiting Mexicans, Latino's access to communication.

On the other hand Peña demonstrates that  technology has been part of the Mexican and Latin identity since the times of the industrial revolution, when new devices were invented and were accessible for  anyone who could buy them. Peña states that "his color TV had the double function of entertainment and involuntary post modern altar." That statement reflects that technology blended perfectly with the lives of people in society. In his home, the TV was placed next to the Guadalupe's figure, family pictures and other appliances because technology was not strange  but necessary.

The embracement that Mexicans and Latinos experienced towards technology was not different from what the rest of society experienced. Mexicans and Latinos were no strange to technology, and nowadays, they have been using the cyber space as a forum of communication and exchange of ideas. They  perform their arts, explore new concepts and criticize the politics that affect the image and development of Mexican and Latinos.

To sum up, Peña demonstrates that the backwardness of Mexicans and latinos towards technology is just a myth and a contemporary stereotype, which labels the Mexican and Latin culture as socially undeveloped and unable to utilize technology.





by Guillermo Gómez-PeñaESPAÑOL



I: Tecnofobia:
My "low rider" laptop is decorated with a 3-D decal of the Virgin of Guadalupe, the spiritual queen of Spanish-speaking America. It's like a traveling altar, an office and a literary bank, all in one. Since I spend 70% of the year on the road, it is (besides my "World Link" phone card of course), my main means to keep in touch with my agent, editors and collaborators spread throughout many cities in the U.S and Mexico. The month before a major performance project, most of the technical preparations, and last minute negotiations and calendar changes, take place in the mysterious territory of cyber-space. Unwillingly, I have become a techno-artist and an information superhighway bandido.
I use the term "unwillingly because, like most Mexican artists, my relationship with digital technology and personal computers is defined by paradoxes and contradictions: I don't quite understand them, yet I am seduced by them; I don't want to know how they work; but I love how they look and what they do; I criticize my colleagues who are acritically immersed in las nuevas tecnologías, yet I silently envy them. I resent the fact that I am constantly told that as a "Latino" I am supposedly "culturally handicapped" or somehow unfit to handle high-technology; yet once I have IT right in front of me, I am tempted and uncontrollably propelled to work against it; to question it, expose it, subvert it, and imbued it with humor, radical politics and linguas polutas such as Spanglish and Franglé.
Contradiction prevails. Two years ago, my main collaborator Roberto Sifuentes and I bullied ourselves into the net, and once we were generously adopted by various communities(Arts Wire, and Latino net, among others) we suddenly started to lose interest in maintaining ongoing conversations with phantasmagoric beings we had never met in person(and that I must say is a Mexican cultural prejudice: if I don't know you in person, I don't really care to converse with you). Then we started sending a series of poetic/activist "techno-placas" in Spanglish. In these short communiqués we raised some tough questions regarding access, identity politics and language. Since at the time we didn't quite know where to post them in order to get the maximum response; and the responses were sporadic and unfocused, our interest began to dim. For months we felt a bit lonely and isolated(It's not hard to feel marginal and inconsequential in cyberspace). And it was only through the gracious persistence of our techno-colleagues that we decided to remain seated at the virtual table, so to speak.
Today, despite the fact that Roberto and I spend a lot of time in front of our laptops (when we are not touring, he is in New York, and I'm in San Francisco or Mexico City) conceptualizing performance projects which incorporate new technologies and redesigning our web sites, every time we are invited to participate in a public discussion around art and technology, we tend to emphasize its shortcomings and overstate our cultural skepticism. Why?
I can only speak for myself. Perhaps I have some computer traumas, or suffer from endemic digital fibrosis. I've been utilizing computers since 88; however, during the first 5 years, I used my old Mac as a glorified typewriter. During those years I probably deleted accidentally here and there over 300 pages of original texts which I hadn't backed up in discs, and thus was forced to rewrite them by memory (Some of these "reconstructed texts" appeared on my first book "Warrior for Gringostroika", Greywolf Press, 1994).The thick and confusing "user friendly" manuals fell many times from my impatient hands. I spent many desperate nights cursing the mischievous gods of cyber-space, and dialing promising "hotlines" which rarely answered, or if they answered, they provided me with complicated instructions I was unable to follow..
My bittersweet relationship to technology dates back to my formative years in the highly politicized ambiance of Mexico City in the 70's. As a young "radical artist", I was full of ideological dogmas and partial truths. One such partial truth spouted that high-technology was intrinsically dehumanizing(enajenante in Spanish); that it was mostly used as a means to control "us" -little techno-illiterate people, politically. My critique of technology overlapped with my critique of capitalism. To me, "capitalists" were rootless(and faceless) corporate men who utilized mass media to advertise their useless electronic gadgets, and sold us unnecessary apparatuses which kept us both, eternally in debt(as a country and as individuals) and conveniently distracted from "the truly important matters of life". Of course, these "important matters" included sex, music, spirituality and "revolution" California style (meaning, en abstracto). As a child of contradiction, besides being a rabid "anti-technology artist," I owned a little Datsun; and listened to my favorite U.S. and British rock groups in my Panasonic importado, often while meditating or making love as a means to "liberate myself" from capitalist socialization. My favorite clothes, books, posters and albums, had all been made with technology by "capitalists"; but for some obscure reason, that seemed perfectly logical to me.
Luckily, my family never lost their magical thinking and sense of humor around technology. My parents were easily seduced by refurbished and slightly dated American and Japanese electronic goods. We bought them as fayuca (contraband) in Tepito neighborhood, and they occupied an important place in the decoration of our "modern" middle-class home. Our huge color TV set for example, was decorated as to perform the double function of entertainment unit and involuntary post modern altar -with nostalgic photos of relatives, paper flowers, and assorted figurines all around it; and so was the humongous sound system, next to it, with an amph, an 8-track recorder, 2 record players and 17 speakers which played all day long, a syncretic array of music including Mexican composer Agustin Lara, Los Panchos (of course with Eddie Gorme), Sinatra, Esquivel, Eartha Kit, tropical cumbias, Italian opera and rock & roll(In this sense, my father was my first involuntary instructor of post modern thought). Though I was sure that with the scary arrival of the first microwave oven to our traditional kitchen, our delicious daily meals were going to turn overnight into sleazy fast food, soon my mother realized that el microondas was only good to reheat cold coffee and soups. The point was to own it, and to display it prominently as yet another sign of modernidad. (In Mexico, modernity is conceived as synonymous with U.S. technology and pop culture).When I moved to California(and therefore into the future), I would often buy cheesy electronic trinkets for my family(I didn't qualify them as "cheesy" then). During vacations, to go back to visit my family with such presents ipso facto turned me into an emissary of both prosperity and modernity. Once I bought an electric ionizador for grandma. She put it in the middle of her bedroom altar, and kept it there -unplugged of course, for months. When I next saw her, she told me: "Mijito, since you gave me that thing(still unplugged), I truly can breath much better." And she probably did. Things like televisions, short wave radios and microwave ovens; and later on ionizers, walkmans, crappy calculators, digital watches and video cameras, were seen by my family and friends as alta tecnologia (high technology), and their function was as much pragmatic as it was social, ritual, sentimental and aesthetic.
It is no coincidence then that in my early performance work, cheap technology performed ritual and aesthetic functions as well. Verbigratia: For years, I used video monitors as centerpieces for my "video-altars" on stage. Fog machines, strobe lights and gobos, megaphones and voice filters have remained since then, trademark elements in my "low-tech/high-tech" performances. By the early 90's, I sarcastically baptized my aesthetic practice, "Aztec high-tech art", and when I teamed with Cyber Vato Roberto Sifuentes, we decided that what we were doing was "techno-razcuache art". In a glossary which dates back to 94, we defined it as "a new aesthetic that fuses performance art, epic rap poetry, interactive television, experimental radio and computer art; but with a Chicanocentric perspective and an sleazoide bent."
II: Mythical Differences
The mythology goes like this. Mexicans(and by extension other Latinos) can't handle high-technology. Caught between a preindustrial past and an imposed modernity, we continue to be manual beings; homo fabers per excellence; imaginative artisans (not technicians); and our understanding of the world is strictly political, poetical or metaphysical at best, but certainly not scientific. Furthermore, we are perceived as sentimentalist and passionate creatures (meaning irrational); and when we decide to step out of our realm, and utilize high technology in our art (most of the time we are not even interested), we are meant to naively repeat what others-mainly Anglos and Europeans- have already done.
We, Latinos, often feed this mythology, by overstating our "romantic nature" and humanistic stances; and/or by assuming the role of colonial victims of technology. We are always ready to point out the fact that social and personal relations in the US, the land of the future, are totally mediated by faxes, phones, computers, and other technologies we are not even aware of; and that the overabundance of information technology in everyday life is responsible for America's social handicaps and cultural crisis. Paradoxically, whether we like it or not, it is our lack of access to these goods what makes us overstate our differences: We, "in the contrary", socialize profusely, negotiate information ritually and sensually; and remain in touch with our (still intact?)primeval selves. This simplistic and extremely problematic binary world view portrays Mexico and Mexicans, as technologically underdeveloped, yet culturally and spiritually superior; and the US as exactly the opposite.
Reality is much more complicated: The average Anglo American does not understand new technologies either; people of color and women in the U.S. clearly don't have "equal access" to cyberspace. Furthermore, American culture has always led the most radical(and often childish) movements against its own technological development and back to nature. Meanwhile, the average urban Mexican is already afflicted in varying degrees with the same "First World" existential illnesses produced by high technology and advanced capitalism. In fact the new generations of Mexicans, including my hip generación-Mex nephews and my 8 year-old fully bicultural son, are completely immersed in and defined by personal computers, Nintendo, video games and virtual reality(even if they don't own the software). Far from being the rrrroomantic preindustrial paradise of the American imaginary, the Mexico of the 90's, is already a virtual(and therefore mythical) nation whose cohesiveness and fluctuating boundaries are largely provided by television, transnational pop culture, tourism, free market, and yes, the internet.
But life in the ranchero global village is ridden with contradictions: Despite all this, still very few people south of the border are on line, and those who are wired, tend to belong to the upper and upper middle classes, and are related to corporate or managerial metiers. Every time my colleagues and I have attempted to create a binational dialogue via digital technologies (ie. link Los Angeles to Mexico City through satellite video-telephone), we are faced with a myriad complications. In Mexico, the few artists with ongoing "access" to high technologies who are interested in this kind of transnational techno-dialogue, with a few exceptions, tend to be socially privileged, politically conservative and aesthetically uninteresting. And the funding sources down there willing to fund this type of project are clearly interested in controlling who is part of the experiment.
The zapatista phenomenon is a famous exception to the rule. Techno-performance artist extraordinaire El subcomandante Marcos communicates with the "outside world" through a very popular web page sponsored and designed by Canadian liberals(It is still a mystery to me how his communiques get from the jungle village of "La Realidad", which still has no electricity, into his website overnight). However, this web page is better known outside of Mexico, for a simple reason: The Mexican Telephone company makes it practically impossible for anyone living outside the main Mexican cities to use the net, arguing that there are simply not enough lines to handle both telephone and internet users.
 "The world is waiting for you-so come on!" ad for America On-line
III: The Cyber-migra
Roberto and I arrived late to the debate, along with a dozen other Chicano experimental artists.
When we began to dialogue with US artists working with new technologies, we were perplexed by the fact that when referring to cyber-space or the net, they spoke of a politically neutral/raceless/genderless and classless "territory" which provided us all with "equal access", and unlimited possibilities of participation, interaction and belonging, specially "belonging"(in a time in which no one feels that they "belong" anywhere). Yet there was never any mention of the physical and social loneliness, or the fear of the "real world" which propels so many people to get on line and pretend they are having "meaningful" experiences of communication or discovery. To them, the thought of exchanging identities in the net and impersonating other genders, races or ages, without real (social or physical) consequences seemed extremely appealing and liberating(and by no means, superficial or escapist).
The utopian rhetoric around digital technologies, specially in California, reminded Roberto and I of a sanitized version of the pioneer and frontier mentalities of the Old West, and also of the early century futurist cult to the speed, size and beauty of epic technology(airplanes, trains, factories, etc.) Given the existing "compassion fatigue" regarding political art and art dealing with matters of race and gender, it was hard to not see this feel-good philosophy(or better said teosophy) as an attractive exit from the acute social and racial crisis afflicting the U.S.
Like the pre-multicultural art world of the early 80's, the new high-tech art world assumed an unquestionable "center", and drew a dramatic digital border. And on the other side of the tracks, there lived all the techno-illiterate (and underfunded) artists, along with most women, Chicanos, Afro-Americans and Native Americans. Those of us living South of the digital border were forced to assume once again the unpleasant but necessary roles of undocumented immigrants, cultural invaders, techno-pirates, and virtual coyotes (smugglers).
We were also shocked by the benign or quiet(not naive) ethnocentrism permeating the debates around art and digital technology, specially in California. The master narrative was either the utopian language of Western democratic values (excuse me!!) or a perverse form of anti-corporate/corporate jargon. The unquestioned lingua franca was of course English, "the official language of international communications"; the theoretical vocabulary utilized by critics was hyper-specialized (a combination of "software" talk; revamped post-structuralism and psychoanalysis), and de-politicized (post colonial theory and the border paradigm were conveniently overlooked); and if Chicanos and Mexicans didn't participate enough in the net, it was solely because of lack of information or interest, (not money or "access") or again, because we were "culturally unfit". The unspoken assumption was that our true interests were "grassroots" (and by grassroots I mean, the streets in the barrio, our logical place in the world), representational or oral (as if these concerns couldn't exist in virtual space). In other words, we were to remain painting murals, tagging, plotting revolutions in rowdy cafes, reciting oral poetry and dancing salsa or quebradita.
 IV: 1st draft of a manifesto: Remapping cyberspace
In the past two years, many theoreticians of color, feminists and activist artist have finally crossed the digital border without documents and, as a result, the debates have become more complex and interesting. Since "we" (as of now, the "we" is still blurry, unspecific and ever changing) don't wish to reproduce the unpleasant mistakes of the multicultural days, nor do we wish to harass the brokers and curators of cyberspace as to elicit a new backlash, our strategies and priorities are now quite different: We are no longer trying to persuade anyone that we are worthy of inclusion(we are de facto insiders/outsiders at the same time, or temporary insiders perhaps, and we know it). Nor are we fighting for the same funding(since serious funding no longer exists specially for politicized experimental art). What we wish is to remap the hegemonic cartography of cyberspace; to "politicize" the debate; to develop a multi centric theoretical understanding of the cultural, political and aesthetic possibilities of new technologies; to exchange a different sort of information (mytho poetical, activist, per formative, imagistic); and to hopefully do all this with humor and intelligence. Chicano artists in particular wish to "brownify" virtual space; to "spanglishize the net", and "infect" the lingua franca;.
With the increasing availability of new technologies in our communities, the notion of "community art" and "political" or politicized art is shifting dramatically. Now the goals, as defined by activist artists, are to find innovative grassroots applications to new technologies; to help the Latino youth literally exchange their guns for computers and video cameras, and to link all community centers through the net. Artist made CD-roms can perform an extremely important educational function for the youth: they can function as community "memory banks" ("encyclopedias chicanicas"). But to attain all this, the larger virtual community must get used to a new cultural presence-the cyber immigrant/mojado; sensibility; and many new languages spoken in the net. All this is yet to be attained.
 Guillermo Gómez-Peña, lives and works between Mexico City and San Francisco, Calif. and can be reached at NAFTAZTC@AOL.com

Stereotypes

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Laurie Anderson

In "From The Ice cube Stage to Simulated Reality: Place and Displacement in Laurie Anderson's Performances,"Silvia Jestrovic stated that the "experimentation with light, music and screen projections have been frequent means of altering the sense of place and exploring the relationship between space, body and sound."And that can be perceived in Anderson's work, since there is a noticeable tension between the real world and the virtual space in her presentations that she aims to explore in each one of her performances.

Laurie Anderson has been exploring and experimenting new concepts in her performances, that for sure transcended the spectator's ideas about how art should look like. Anderson transforms places and ordinary elements of the everyday living into works of art.  She uses a wide variety of media to communicate her perceptions and  concerns. The use of technology, and the use of the  mass and media enhance her message to reach a bigger audience. 


However, "Duet on Ice" is  one of the most characteristic performances of Anderson. In which she uses  her self playing violin, while she stands on skates over ice cubes. She plays alive over her pre-recorded songs until the ice melts and while she tells a particular story about her grandmother. Her best places to perform are different environments, such as the streets, markets and any other public space.  "Most of all Duet on Ice is an interaction with place, be it a physical environment, a cultural landscape, or an internal space of dreams and memories. As the ice melts, the two spaces – that of the performance and of the real world – merge" (Jestrovic 30).

"Place and Displacement" is another performance of Anderson, in which she explores the contemporary world and the use of technology in the everyday living. The real world interacts with the virtual space, which individuals can occupy both at the same time. Moreover, Anderson explores the tension between the two places, the material plane and the virtual space. According to Jestrovic, "Anderson has become famous for using technology as means of expansion of space and body and for employing sophisticated electronic gadgets and musical instruments to amalgamate live and recorded sounds and images" (30). 

Hence, Anderson artwork is a media to point out her concerns about society. Technology is shaping society into a new form and we seem not to be aware of it. Consumerism and materialism are ruling our lives and  "popular culture replaces spirituality" (Jestrovic 35). These are the controversial ideas that Anderson emphasizes through a political an humorous unrest.








From the Ice Cube Stage to Simulated Reality: Place and Displacement in Laurie Anderson’s Performances
Silvija Jestrovic
You can read the signs. You’ve been on this road before. Do you want to go home? Hello, excuse me, can you tell me where I am?
(Lighting Out For the Territories, Laurie Anderson)
Laurie Anderson’s stage persona is most often associated with the figure
of the storyteller. Describing one of her early performances, John Howell
notes that Anderson ‘adopted the guise of an ethereal storyteller’.1 In his
article ‘Laurie Anderson for Dummies’, Jon McKenzie links the story-
teller persona of Laurie Anderson to technology: ‘Mediating in media,
through media, Anderson sinks the oral and literary traditions into her
electronic body in order to investigate electronic storytelling’.2 Anderson
Contemporary Theatre Review, Vol. 14(1), 2004, 25–37
describes herself, as ‘just a storyteller’, and her work as ‘the world’s 3
oldest art form’. In Stories from the Nerve Bible, she writes the following: For me, electronics have always been connected to storytelling. Maybe because storytelling began when people used to sit around fires and because fire is magic, compelling and dangerous. We are transfixed by its light and by its destructive power. Electronics are modern fires.4
Still, the identity less explored by scholars and journalists, who follow Anderson’s work, is that of a traveller – of someone who goes places, whether real or imagined, and returns to tell and sing about what she had seen and experienced.
Anderson has hitchhiked to the North Pole; spent some time in Mexico with Tzeltal Indians – the last Mayan tribe; lived in Berlin; and went to Bali to interview Prince Ubud. These are just some of her travels that eventually became transformed into stories, lyrics, music, and images. The work of Laurie Anderson often focuses on the significance
Cof place and travel: part one of the United States (1983) spectacle is dedicated to transportation; her low-tech show Empty Places (1990) features just one projected image – a road; maps and airplanes are recurring objects in her art; finally, her experimentation with light, music and screen projections have been frequent means of altering the sense of place and exploring the relationship between space, body and sound. Anderson’s performances have involved a wide variety of places including streets, theatres, prisons and cyber spaces. When asked by PBS to create an introductory segment for Program 1: Place, part of the Emmy nominated series Art:21 (2001), Anderson made a dreamlike video about the significance of space.5 In the opening segment of the video, she addresses the viewers from within a gigantic billboard over- looking a busy New York City street: ‘Most of the work that I do as an artist, whether it’s music, or images or a story, begins with a place. A room, a road, a city, a country – these places become jumping off points
6
for my imagination’. In this short introductory video, she plays with
real and imagined places, travelling in an oversized armchair to Central Park and to a Japanese supermarket.
In the work of Laurie Anderson, places, whether real or fictional, theatrical or musical, public or personal, embody Michel Foucault’s notion of heterotopia. Unlike utopias, heterotopias are real spaces that ‘are outside of all places, even though it may be possible to indicate their location in reality’.7 Places such as prisons, fairground booths, psychi- atric hospitals, cemeteries, and, one might add, theatrical stages and cyber spaces, are heterotopias. They exist as ‘counter-sites’ to the norma- tive conventional spaces. In heterotopias, as Foucault points out, all the other real sites that can be found within a culture ‘are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted’.8 Two aspects of heterotopia are particularly relevant for the notion of space in the work of Laurie Anderson: (1) Heterotopia is not defined in isolation, but rather through its relationship with other real and virtual spaces. The musical theatre of Laurie Anderson creates a cultural landscape in the form of hetero- topia(s) as a network of ‘counter-sites’ that include streets, theatrical sites, virtual places, prisons, and cyber spaces. (2) Heterotopia is a site within which different, even incompatible spaces could co-exist. Anderson’s performances have similar qualities mixing avant-garde and mass culture; combining emotions and electronics; and bringing together real and virtual worlds. Finally, her music has its own heterotopian quality being a fusion between the musical and the visual, combining singing with talking and live with recorded sounds. This paper will explore the dynamics between place and displacement in Anderson’s performances. It will focus on Anderson’s early works, particularly the street concert Duet on Ice (1974), as instances of interaction with place and her well-known hi-tech performances, most notably United States I–IV, as spectacles of displacement and attempts to re-connect with place though technology.
MELTING INTO THE SOUNDSCAPE OF THE CITY
Soon after Laurie Anderson arrived in New York in 1966 to study fine arts at Bernard College, she became involved with the avant-garde art scene. After the political protests of 1968, when students occupied the main buildings of Columbia University, the New York avant-garde grew more political and searched for alternative performance and exhibition venues outside the establishment. Anderson’s artistic career started at the galleries Artists Space and the Kitchen; both places, located in the Manhattan’s SoHo district, were the main performance/exhibition venues for New York avant-garde artists at the time. In the 1960s and 1970s, SoHo became a distinct artistic colony detached from the city’s official political and art system. The avant-garde, being counter-cultural in nature, had inhabited a ‘counter-site’ – a heterotopic space – that Laurie Anderson describes as ‘another frontier [. . .] an alternate site of New York where everyone was hiding’.9
The city itself became a performance site for various happenings and environmental theatre experiments. These performances shifted the relationship between participants and onlookers and challenged the single-focus of orthodox theatre by creating works that involved simul- taneous action distributed through space. Artists tried to re-establish the atmosphere of street-markets, fairground booths and circus as means of subverting the norms of mainstream art, music and performance. Some of these events were highly politically charged, such as the environ- mental performance Guerrilla Warfare (1967), staged at 23 locations throughout New York City as a reaction to the war in Vietnam. Among the performance locations were the Main Recruiting Centre in Times Square and the Port Authority Bus Terminal on 8th Avenue. Other performances explored the theatrical qualities of both art and life such as the festival Street Works I–IV (1969) held in downtown New York that featured renowned performance artists Vito Acconci, Scott Burton and Joan Jones. Laurie Anderson’s performance Duet on Ice was created in the tradition of these experiments; it counted on a random interaction with the audience and on the theatrical dimensions of urban public spaces. In 1974, Anderson performed Duet on Ice in each borough of New York City, fulfilling the public service requirement of the CAPS grant, which she had received earlier that year. In 1975, she took her street-show to Genoa, Italy.
Duet on Ice is a minimalist performance where Anderson uses the Self-Playing Violin11 to perform mostly pre-recorded cowboy songs, while wearing skates embedded in the slabs of ice (see Figure 1). The title of the performance indicates that this one-woman show is in fact a duet, meaning that the performer and the instrument – the Self-Playing Violin – are both active participants in the stage event. In between songs, Anderson talks about parallels between skating and playing violin, about her late grandmother, and about ducks on a frozen lake. When the ice melts the performance is over. Basic elements of this show – the skates with their blades frozen into ice, the violin, and some of the monologues – originated within Anderson’s first full-length performance As: If (1974) that took place at the Arts Space gallery. Nevertheless, when the show moved outside the enclosed and controlled space of the art gallery to the streets of New York, it acquired new theatrical and musical dimensions. As avant-garde experiments of similar kind, Duet on Ice explores liminal versions of theatricality as a device that fore- grounds the immanently artful and artificial qualities of a performance, but also as a means of transforming reality into a play, a happening or a street spectacle.
The type of interaction between the theatrical and the extra artistic space, embodied in Duet on Ice, was preceded by two experimental projects, An Afternoon of Automotive Transmission and Institutional Dream Series, both staged in 1972. An Afternoon of Automotive Trans- mission, which Anderson describes as ‘really horrible’,13 was her first outdoor spectacle. Performed in Rochester, New York, this happening was envisioned as a summer concert for automobile and truck horns. The whole event has a humorous tone featuring musical compositions such as: ‘The Well-Tempered Beep’, ‘Concerto for Land Rover with Six- Cylinder Backup’, and ‘Auto-Da-Fé’.14 Even though mostly preoccupied with sound, this performance also inverts common spatial delineation by reversing the traditional relationship between the audience and the performers. Every summer regular musical concerts would be held in the Rochester Park, with musicians playing in the park’s gazebo and the audience seated on the surrounding grass. Also part of the local custom has been that the audience applauds the summer concerts by blowing their car horns. Anderson places the audience in the gazebo and the performers – drivers and their cars – around it. Reversing the positions and performing the concert of car horns, Anderson subverts the conven- tions of a traditional communal event and turns it into a happening of avant-garde defamiliarisation. As Duet on Ice, this show temporarily transforms an official public space in a counter-site reversing its customary priorities and functions.
While the car concert searches for qualities of otherness within an established circumscribed public space, Anderson’s Institutional Dream Series explores the interaction between public and internal space. This series of photographs depicts Anderson as she sleeps in New York’s Night Court, in a public bathroom, and on Coney Island beach. The photographs document Anderson’s experiment on the impact of place on dreams: ‘I am trying to sleep in different places to see if the place can color or control my dreams’.15 This relationship between external/public and internal space, where the latter is identified as the other – the counter-site – is repeated in the Duet on Ice as Anderson tells her memories to strangers, allowing her personal stories to be altered by these encounters.
As she embeds herself into the mini ice cube stage, Anderson amalga- mates the performer and the performance space. This principle recurs in her more elaborate spectacles where through projections and various other technological devices the space becomes an extension of the performer’s body. In Duet on Ice, resembling a struggling musician who plays in the streets of big cities, Anderson theatricalises her performance allowing the sites and sounds of the city to invade her work. Traffic noises mix with the music and storytelling; on very busy street corners, they even overpower the performance. These ‘accidental’ sounds become part of the musical score, while buildings and shop windows turn into the backdrop of the theatrical event. The duration of the performance is also flexible and it depends on the outside temperature, since the only timing mechanisms of the show are blocks of ice. One of the perform- ance sites Anderson chose for the Duet on Ice, partly to speed up the show, was the ‘Monument of the Eternal Flame’ in Genoa where fire cut the show time in half. Talking to the bystanders between songs, Anderson also provokes a dialogue that intervenes with the structure of her work. In New York, at one time, a panhandler saw her playing and wanted to team up, while in Italy a bystander once altered her mono- logue due to a linguistic confusion: In awkward Italian, I told a group of people in Genoa that I was playing these songs in memory of my grandmother because the day she died I went out on a frozen lake and saw a lot of ducks whose feet had frozen into the new layer of ice.
One man who heard me tell this story was explaining to the newcomers, ‘She’s playing these songs because once she and her grand- mother were frozen together into a lake’.16
In her later, more elaborately structured performances, Anderson continues to play with foreign idioms to explore the relationship between language and place. She is not only interested in language as a vehicle of narration, but also in its cultural implications and sound quality that often becomes part of the musical score.
Duet on Ice explores the possibilities of metamorphoses of the real, the habitual, the ordinary into the theatrical – whether related to everyday sounds and sites of urban spaces or to human interactions. Once the miniature ice stage moves out of a designated performance venue, the artist is no longer fully in control of the performance. The show becomes open to interference of different landscapes and sound- scapes as each part of the city influences the performance in a unique way. Most of all Duet on Ice is an interaction with place, be it a physical environment, a cultural landscape, or an internal space of dreams and memories. As the ice melts, the two spaces – that of the performance and of the real world – merge. The ‘counter-space’ – the ice cube stage – melts into the normative space – the street. In Duet on Ice, the ice cubes become a mini-stage within a large ‘stage’ of the city – a metropolitan teatrum mundi.
TECHNOLOGY AND DISLOCATION
Since Duet on Ice Anderson has experimented in various media moving from minimalism to hi-tech performance. She has created works that are hard to place within one genre and medium of presentation: some belong to the family of Wilson/Glass’ brand of postmodern opera (United States I–IV, 1983), others could be described as theatricalised rock concerts (Home of the Brave, 1985), while some are very close to visual art and installation (Del Vivo, 1998). Her shows have been described as ‘elec- tronic operas’, ‘avant-pop musicals’ and ‘multi-media performances’. Anderson has become famous for using technology as means of expan- sion of space and body and for employing sophisticated electronic gadgets and musical instruments to amalgamate live and recorded sounds and images. She has played with a wide variety of materials and electronic devices to map out ‘the territories’ of the postmodern urban landscape in general and of United States as a personal, political, cultural, and – in particular – a technological experience.
In his famous essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936), Walter Benjamin points out that the new tech- nology has altered the perception of both art and reality, by means of the speed with which new artistic media are able to capture and freeze images, enlarge them and slow them down. Benjamin and his fellow modernists believed that art, based on new technology, would bring a new political function of art, transform the production apparatus, radi- cally alter the performer–audience relationship, and turn art into a mass phenomenon intelligible and accessible to all. However, the historical avant-garde belonged to a different political and cultural landscape, within which it was still possible to believe in the meaning of history as truth that could be revealed through discourse and artistic creation. The postmodern performance, wherein Anderson’s work belongs, reveals a very different cultural space, that of multiple perspectives through which the status of reality as a stable category is questioned and problematised.
In our contemporary reality technology plays the key role in recon- figuring the relationship between individual and space. Revolution in the mass media and electronic communication has destabilised categories of space and time, enabling – through the Internet and other modern media – new forms of human interaction, new ways of travel and new modes of representation. A stable sense of place and presence is shattered; technology becomes an extension of space and body creating a mediated reality. While Duet on Ice and Anderson’s other performances from the 1970s explore the possibilities of merging and crossovers of different spaces – external/internal, conscious/subconscious, artistic/extra artistic – it does not come as a surprise that her hi-tech performances in the 1980s and 1990s turn into spectacles of dislocation. Anderson, using various technological devices to create effects of doubling and expansion of body and space, makes the relationship between presence and absence, place and displacement, identity and otherness increasingly ambiguous.
She problematises the relationship with place through technology and explores the idea of being in two places at once creating dummies, hologram doubles, satellite projections and computer generated personage. In the 1986 video What Do You Mean We?, hosted by Spalding Gray, Anderson introduces a male clone, who enables her to be in two places at once. Her CD-ROM Puppet Motel (1994) could be read as a computerised performance where the live performer is replaced by a virtual cast. The live audience – the computer interface users – are encouraged to interact with the computerised space and by doing so influence the course of the show. Anderson’s Del Vivo project (1998) is focused on telepresence as a version of both dislocation and virtual freedom. In the gallery space of Fondazione Prada, Anderson, by means of televised transport, presents the body of a prisoner from the San Vittore prison in Milan. This project explores new possibilities of presence and absence and new forms of dislocation and confinement. Anderson describes Del Vivo in the following way:
I’ve made Del Vivo because I’m interested in theatre of real time and in the magic of disembodied body. The prisoner is present in time but spatially remote. Voiceless, unseeing. Del Vivo looks at the way telepres- ence has altered our perception of time and body. It is about voyeurism, our fascination with judgement and justice and the functions of the guarded institution – both prison and cultural institutions.
Modern technology has enabled not only new ways of interacting with place but new forms of placelessness and absence. Moreover, from the 1980s on, the somewhat innocent and spontaneous relation- ship with space, which marked Anderson’s earlier work, has been replaced with the stronger sense of both place and technology as political categories.
The early 1980s was the beginning of an era when politics, history, and show business grew dramatically close, creating a mass televised spectacle of reality. In 1981, Ronald Reagan, a former Hollywood film star, was elected President of the United States. During this decade, Yuppies emerged as a social category establishing a new kind of consum- erism, while avant-garde artists became mainstream celebrities. Repub- lican rule continued through the 1990s with the presidency of George Bush, while the grim political and cultural climate became even more palpable as he waged the Gulf War (1991).
Anderson explains the effect the political landscape has on her work: ‘I find my own reactions to this are driving me even further into the politics of pop culture. I want to know what the motor is, what is driving this country further and further to the right. Consequently much of my work has become political and engaged’.18 In 1994 Anderson wrote the song ‘Night in Baghdad’,19 an ironic comment on the bombing of Iraq and its coverage in the US media. The song is performed in front of a screen on which the words ‘Hello, California? Can you hear me?’ appear, followed by images of the war, while Anderson utters the lyrics as a mockery of CNN news broadcast: The performance of this song, strikingly relevant today in George W. Bush’s America and in the aftermath of the most recent invasion of Iraq, problematises and politicises the experience of space. Anderson speaks and sings from the other place – from the war zone – that normally reaches the audience through televised, mediated and somewhat sani- tised images of destruction not unlike in video games. This performance explore a similar time/space dynamic to the Del Vivo project – the event of the war is present in time but distant in space, which makes it confined within a different geographical framework and thus safely remote. Night in Baghdad (1994) and Del Vivo (1998) confront both the ironies and the possibilities of mediated reality, searching for meaning in the gaps between reality and its substitute. By placing together the imagery of bombing and destruction and the iconography of North American religious and state holidays, Anderson achieves a striking, disturbing and disorienting effect. Breaking through the automatized perception of the war filtered by mass media, Anderson displaces the common iconog- raphy of the American cultural landscape and transposes it into the war zone context, revealing the very place she inhabits as unstable and problematic.
UNITED STATES
In her book Staging Place: The Geography of Modern Drama, Una Chaudhuri introduces the term geopathology to describe modern dramas’ approach to place as problematic – as a site of betrayal:
Anderson’s work confronts ‘geopathology’ not only through critique and irony, but also by revealing the need to genuinely interact with place. The ‘talking-opera’ United States I–IV illustrates Anderson’s conception of space as heterotopic – where the ‘painful politics’ of place and poetics of placelessness coexist. She describes this project in
the following way: ‘When I began to write United States, I thought of it as a portrait of a country. Gradually I realised it was really a descrip- tion of any technological society and of people’s attempts to live in an electronic world’.23
United States I–IV, lasting over eight hours, is performed in four parts: Transportation, Politics, Money, and Love. The show combines the themes and ‘lingo’ of the American vernacular of the road and mass culture, using slide projectors, films, hi-tech apparatus of feedback loops, echo effects and devices that alter the performer’s voice.24 The performance is a meditation on the sorry state of the world represented through a dialogic collage of music, songs, and stories. It features ominous and ironic imagery, such as huge clocks ticking on screen (see Figure 2), blasting rockets, and the American flag tumbling in a clothes dryer.
The show begins as a meditation on travel, with a story about the discovery of America, which paraphrases the Biblical Flood legend, followed by the song ‘Born Again’. The backdrop – an enormous screen projection of wild animals – further ties into the metaphor of Noah’s Ark. This entire segment gives a sense of moving through a vast urban landscape as Anderson takes the audience on a virtual journey that involves the New Jersey Turnpike, a visit to Los Angeles and a crash landing at La Guardia airport. Throughout the show, matching the beat of hi-tech music and the rhythm of spoken language, Anderson plays with imagery related to travel and communication, such as open roads, New York City, radio dials, and answering machines. The cultural and political space is conveyed as an elusive fast changing landscape.
To destabilise the notion of place Anderson uses electronic means of altering the representation of space and body.25 She juxtaposes the three- dimensional human body on the stage to an enlarged two-dimensional slide projection of its image or shadow on the big screen. Screen projec- tions are also used to extend the stage space. A platform with a single step allows the performer to enter the ‘film space’ and become part of the two-dimensional image. The configuration of real and filmed space, live and recorded sound, live and projected images creates a constant tension between presence and absence. Live body and sound, and the real space interact with filmed imagery and recorded soundscape. In addition, Anderson creates a fake hologram in which she makes images of a room by rapidly waving her violin bow in the light-path of the slide projection. This also emphasises the position of the performer in the midst of the vast stage space; it symbolises the individual’s relationship to the ever-expending cultural landscape and an attempt to re-insert the notion of home.
The songs featured in this performance address the pathology of place and the sense of being lost. For instance, in her famous song ‘O Superman’ – Anderson’s ironic rendering of Massenet’s spiritual solo ‘O Sovereign’ from the opera Le Cid – answering machines provide the illusion of communication and popular culture replaces spirituality. Anderson performs this song merging in the corridor of light between the projector and the screen; she makes only simple gestures like raising her arm that becomes dramatically enlarged when projected on the backdrop behind her. The whole conversational tone of this song starting with a subdued laughter paced to the timing of amplified heart- beats has an unsettling effect. The song depicts America as ‘hyper- reality’ (Eco), where the substitute of the real becomes more palpable than reality itself.
Anderson has been able to capture through technology the profoundly heterotopic dimensions of hi-tech real and virtual spaces. She does not only diagnose the pitfalls of technological progress and pathology of place, but at the same time believes in technology as a means of re-establishing communication and re-inserting the sense of place. Anderson’s enlarged images and amplified sounds of her heart- beats could be read as gestures of reaching out.
CHRONOTOPES
This essay has explored ways in which Laurie Anderson’s musical theatre relates to the notion of space and cultural landscape tracing it through three decades. She has created a unique musical and stage language by toying with various elements and genres. Her music, which often involves visual elements, storytelling and technology, is well- known for defying conventions and for establishing its avant-garde qualities within a popular musical environment. Anderson’s work could be viewed as a cultural chronotope where, as Bakhtin (who coined the term) puts it, ‘Time thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of time, plot and history’.26 Anderson’s relationship to place has been a process of mapping out the signs of time. In the 1970s, Anderson, as other avant-garde artists, chose minimalism and low-tech performance devices to mark her territory outside the official cultural institutions. Technology was mainly the instrument of the establishment, while the artists explored more immediate and direct ways of communicating to the audience and interacting with the cultural landscape. In the 1980s and 1990s, it becomes evident that sophisticated electronic communica- tions and aggressive mass media define the last decades of the 20th century. The perception of the world as a technological wasteland, a ‘simulacrum’ (Baudrillard), and a ‘hyper-reality’ (Eco) has dominated avant-garde art and theatre, postmodern critical thought, and the schol- arship on Laurie Anderson.
For an artist, such as Anderson, to remain within the hermetic frame- work of the avant-garde scene would have meant to mark over and over again a space that has been already conquered and that in competition with the mass media culture had exhausted its appeal. New York’s famous SoHo district, where Anderson still lives, has undergone the transformation from a bohemian refuge to a very expensive and trendy neighborhood  Cultural landscape emerged as a political category that could be truly represented and confronted only by means as spectacular and far-reaching as that of modern mass media. Anderson has managed to criticize  probe, humor and deconstruct the mass media culture and corporate establishment while comfortably using their money and resources. Her performances, exploring the notion of space through technology, have emerged as hi-tech counter-sites – a new form of heterotopia(s) – to unmask the simulations in the extra-artistic reality.
Nevertheless, her most recent projects, including Happiness and the new album Life on a String, a minimalist autobiographical work with melancholic overtones, turn away from complicated hi-tech gadgets and devices. The symbiosis between avant-garde musical performance and technology seems to have lost its appeal for Anderson. Her recent performance Happiness (2002) is mainly a storytelling event and a low- tech journey through various places from the Egyptian mummification rituals to New York City after September 11 (see Figure 3). Anderson particularly talks about how the terrorist attacks changed her neigh- bourhood, but also makes cynical observations in regards to George W. Bush’s politics. While in her previous hi-tech performances sounds and images compete on stage, in this show Anderson reduces visual effects and focuses on sounds as means of ‘seeing’ familiar images in a new way. She uses only two of her many hi-tech instruments: the mouth light and sunglasses with impulse sensors that make audible her facial movements and her gestures. This device suggests the idea of seeing through sound and Anderson employs it to react to the reality overloaded by mediated images of events. Images are the main means of the contemporary mass media spectacles that perhaps most strongly define and influence our perception of reality. Anderson invites us to ‘displace’ our senses producing the effect of seeing through sound and of hearing the image. In other words, she destabilises the customary roles of image and sound in mass culture and in our consciousness. By turning to minimalism, Anderson unmasks the hi-tech spectacle of reality; her approach is close to the technique of the film director Alejandro González Iñárritu, who in the omnibus 11’09’01 (2002) separates sounds and images using the well-known documentary footage of the terrorist attacks. Likewise, in her new work, Anderson displays the need to relate to reality in radically different ways from that of mass media spectacles and televised broad- casts.
Moreover since Anderson’s hi-tech performances in the 1980s and 1990s many have explored the dynamics between real and simulated as a dominant quality of the contemporary cultural landscape. This issue has even served as a material for recent Hollywood movies, from the technological fantasises such as Matrix (1999) and its sequel, Matrix Reloaded (2003), to political satires like Wag the Dog (1997), which focuses on a simulated war for political gain, and Truman Show (1998) that prefigured, perhaps even inspired, the new and enormously popular form of entertainment – the reality TV shows. Anderson explores the relationship between simulation and reality in more complex ways than the mainstream culture and entertainment. Even though her work involves cultural critique, political satire and parody, simulation comes across in Anderson’s performances not only as a postmodern condition or as pathology of the mediated reality, but also as an authentic expres- sion in a highly technological world. In a cultural climate where mass- culture embodies Baudrillard’s notion of simulacrum in mostly banal ways and uses Pirandello’s performative interplay between illusion and reality to appeal to the lowest common denominator, Laurie Anderson’s return to minimalism seems to be a brave solution in establishing new ways of interacting with place. Her new work continues to read as a search for cracks between simulation and authentic being, as a quest for place wherein to reinsert both a new meaning and a critique of that meaning.