Marina Abramovic and Ulay: Imponderabilia (1977)
“involved the direct participation of the viewer in an intimate physical and psychological confrontation with the artists” - Paul Schimmel
What is Imponderabilia?
Imponderabilia is a performance which was created with Abramovic and her partner and collaborator at the time, Ulay. Abramovic and Ulay created many works together. Their works primarily explored topics such as gender, trust, and sexuality. In this 90 minute performance, Ulay and Marina stand naked facing one another in a doorway at the Galleria Communale d’Arte Moderna in Bologna. Similar to Rhythm 0, this piece also involved participation of the viewer. As viewers pass between Ulay and Marina, they are forced to turn sideways through the space between the artists, therefore having to choose which artist’s naked body to face.
Naked Body as Art
Once again, Abramovic uses her body as a material object. The audience members once again participate with her body, but the difference between this piece and Rhythm 0 is that the audience members are not given as many options. The viewer was given one decision to make and that was to either face Ulay or face Marina as they walk through the door way. This work is really about this decision that participants make. This decision raises sexual and gender anxieties and also sexual and gender desires.
What is normative in a gallery space is completely violated in this piece. Not only are the artists present but the artists are the piece. They are violating unspoken social rules. The question of body and space is addressed in the piece as well. In a way they are invading the people’s private space that exists in a public space. By forcing viewers to rub up against their naked bodies they are passively invading the personal space of the viewers but also making the naked body, which is “supposed” to be private, public.
What does time have to do with it?
In Kristine Stiles book Marina Abramovic, she states that “Abramovic/Ulay’s action cannot be copied, repeated or re-enacted without losing its historical integrity and aesthetic elegance, for it was a moment shared and created between two artists, their public and a camera.” I believe what she is saying is that this piece would not have the same effect today as it did then. This piece was created in the 1970s and although we have documented it, it was more about the relationship between artist and viewer during the 90 minute duration then it is about its lasting effect. The nude body had a much different affect in the 1970s then it would today. In the 1970s art context, the nude body provoked awe and excitement because it was one of the first times that the public came in contact with the idea that the body could visually communicate without a narrative. This piece is destroyed because the intent is gone. This piece is ephemeral. It only lasted for 90 minutes. Although it has been documented with photos and videos and has also been re-created in a different time and place, the original performance has been destroyed and has transformed from the original over time. If this piece were done today, I don’t think that it would have the same effect it did when it first was performed.
Response to Comments:
What does this have to do with destruction?
In this piece, Ulay and Marina were breaking down and in a way destroying social boundaries. In this performance, the act of destruction is more conceptual than physical. Unlike Rhythm 0, Marina’s body is not being destroyed, but she once again uses her body as the medium for destruction. This time destroying the space and also the expectations of the viewer. It is more about the destruction of boundaries rather than a destruction of an object. Not only were they naked in public, but they were influencing the way people interacted with the space. They obstructed a passage way for visitor, therefore forcing viewers to think more about the space they were taking up. Time functions as a framing device and a medium for destruction in the piece, but there are also ideological frames. In Stopping Mall: Marina Abramovic and The Politics of Power the author states that “their immobile ‘nakedness’ would have removed the audience's previous social expectations, and removed any possibility of the audience engaging in a passive viewership. It would seem that Imponderabilia used passivity as a power structure.” Ideological frames such as social norms and expectations are altered. This piece not only goes against social norms, but also goes against the viewers expectation for what should be in a gallery space. The act of being naked and making people shift as they walk through their bodies changes the space.
Implications Today
When this piece was originally performed, it was intended to last six hours. But 90 minutes into the performance, the police arrived and ended the piece. There is an element of destruction due to the intervention of the police officers. In the 1970s when the police were involved, the performance was not over, they ended it. This performance was recreated at Marina Abramovic’s retrospective at the MOMA in New York in 2010. Once again, security was involved. But this time, it was not due to the content of the piece, but was due to the audience members inappropriately touching the performers. It is interesting that security was involved during both renditions but differed in the reasons for intervening. What does this say about our reactions as viewers to nudity?
I initially thought that this piece would receive a much different reaction if it were performed today. But when it was recreated in 2010 people were still uncomfortable. I would argue that nudity in 2010, did not hold the same socio-political power that it did in 1977. Although it still creates discomfort in the viewers, the piece did not have to be shut down. I think the piece is more accepted today and less scandalous, but it still creates discomfort in the viewer. In an article from the New York Post, one viewer from the 2010 Retrospective stated that “It didn’t feel normal...not in a public place.”
Post made by Megan Ogle
Sources:
- Demaria, Cristina. "The Performative Body of Marina Abramović Rerelating (in) Time and Space." European Journal of Women's Studies 11.3 (2004): 295-307.
- Schimmel, Paul. Out of actions : between performance and the object, 1949-1979 / Los Angeles, Calif. : The Museum of Contemporary Art New York : Thames and Hudson, 1998.
- Stiles, Kristine. Marina Abramović /London ; New York : Phaidon, 2008.
- Westcott, James, When Marina Abramović dies : a biography / Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 2010.
- Ward, Frazer. Marina Abramovic: Approaching Zero. The 'do-it-yourself' artwork : participation from fluxus to new media / Manchester, UK ; New York : Manchester University Press ; New York : Distributed in the United States exclusively by Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
- http://seanosullivan.ie/imponderabilia/. Stopping Mall: Marina Abramovic and the Politics of Power. 2011.
- Callahan, Maureen. "Squeezy Does It at MOMA." New York Post. 2010.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCatherine Estrada:
ReplyDeleteThe second paragraph of the "Naked Body as Art" section is a wonderful distillation of the piece and its implications on the gallery, the viewers, and bodies as art.
The second sentence in the "What does time have to do with it" section (the quote) is very long. I think it's too long. It should be shortened or divided into 2-3 individual quotes. In fact, you could just insert some key words or parts of the quote into your discussion after it.
I think that your formatting was really good. The way you broke up the topic made the information easier to digest. Also, the pictures seem comprehensive without being excessive.
Catherine Estrada
I really enjoyed learning about this piece since I had never heard of it before. However, I am not sure how it ties to destruction. Some interesting points are raised here about personal space, private vs. public, the human body etc. that I would love to see expanded on and linked to destruction.
ReplyDeleteI would have also loved to know if there were any conclusions were made about the piece. Did women tend to face the man or woman more often? How did the participants react to this? What were the reviews? Did Abramovic give any quotes about the piece?
In response to the comment above, as well as the main article, I believe destruction does tie into this piece. As the author states, in the 1970s, this piece had a much stronger impact with its use of the artists' naked bodies. The naked body appearing in art with live participants (as opposed to a marble, headless, non-threatening ancient Venus statue more typically associated with art and its history) was more subversive then than it is now, and made more of a statement. One part of that statement is the breakdown (or destruction, dismantling) of boundaries. If we think of it in terms of Derrida's framing, the naked body is "framed" by what we expect of it- only in private, something to be ashamed of, and (in art, usually) non sexual. This piece broke down that frame by introducing naked bodies to the public, giving it a sexualized aspect (people are going to have gendered reactions in whichever way they choose to turn), and the artists clearly not being ashamed of their nakedness. The destruction here is more conceptual and not based on physical decay.
ReplyDelete-Stephanie Kostezak
I agree with the first two comments in that the break down of the topics did make the topic easier to digest but the use of quotes were a bit long at times and the sentences after them simply reworded what was said.
ReplyDeleteI found both of the pieces interesting but I think you could of focused on the topic of destruction a lot more. Destruction of boundaries (public vs private space) the destruction of the artists' body and how the public treated her. This article was informative and well written leading the reader into the next topic with the clean format. However, I was hoping that when discussing on the destruction/loss of time would of had a comparison/prediction on how the audience reacted at the time and place of the performance. Such as the performance of Imponderabilia in Italy in the 1970s and why that specific performance and audience reaction was so unique by possibly comparing it to what it would be like if Marina performed Imponderabilia now in the 20th century and in America or somewhere else. I think this would of raised a good argument for the topic of time and experience being lost especially since the key focus of the piece was breaking down the private and public space which are both very different in European and American culture.
Overall, I enjoyed reading this blog and found it easy and enjoyable to take in.
-Victoria Roberts
I think that the concept of time in this piece is interesting because it is truly a moment that cannot be recreated. The act of trying to get by two naked people and having to chose the one you face truly makes you think about what gender you are, what gender they are, and who you chose to face naked. The awkwardness felt with one gender trumps the other, and that is when the decision is made. I don't think I would enjoy rubbing up against two naked people I had never met before, but that is how this act in the museum is destructive. It breaks any boundary you would expect to be present in a museum context and takes the participant into a place where they have to make a decision, not just an opinion on a piece like a painting.
ReplyDelete-Darcey Lachtman
I really like your post and I think this piece is particularly interesting because it would, in my opinion still have an impact. I would like to read more about your opinion on how it might be seen if it was done today. Like you said, the effect would most likely be different. But then again I think it would still be controversial. Nowadays it seems like we are exposed to nudity almost all the time when actually it is censored in music videos and commercials. It would definitely be different, and I would like to hear what exactly would change in your opinion.
ReplyDelete-Reni
This piece provides an interesting forum for discussion, and I like how you wove together aspects of time, performance, destruction, and vulnerability, as all are critical components in Abramovic's work. The notion of time as a barrier and as a frame for meaning was interesting to me in light of our discussion (specifically around Nead’s reading) of the frame and the importance of the frame in relation to the nude and the human body. If we (being society, the audience at large, etc.) find the body acceptable, containable, decent, within the right frame, then it's interesting to me to see how Abramovic redefined and challenged the dimensions of that frame. The vulnerability of the artist and the implication of the audience are completely dependent on the time frame of the performance. Normally I would think of “frames” as defined in terms of the physical (the line of the body, the medium of the art work), or ideological (expectations, norms, etc.) but I like that you chose to focus on the importance of time as a framing device and as a medium for destruction, as the passing and decay of time is a ubiquitous and inevitable truth that we unanimously must experience and accept. Overall I think this was a great post on a really interesting subject, I like the personal commentary you provided and I also feel well informed on the subject. This post was both educational and insightful, and provides a great topic of discussion for many of the larger themes of this course.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I particularly appreciate in Marina Abramovic and Ulay’s common work is the way they use corporal art as a vector to express their ideas about sexuality. For Marina Abramovic "the perfect human being is a hermaphrodite because it is half man half woman, but also a complete universe ... We are man and woman".
ReplyDeleteBetween 1976 and 1988 they worked as a duo. They perform together a series of actions: "The relationship works," in which the couple never ceases to question sexual identities and power relations between genders.
At the beginning of each performance, by mutual agreement, the artists are "united" physically and mentally. The end is the separation, when artists are no longer union but unable to endure the "fusion".
Relation in Space (selection No. 4) is a performance where the two artists are naked and thrown against each other repeatedly for an hour. Their naked bodies intersect, graze, touch and rub.
Many performances of Abramovic and Ulay walk on the principle of synchronization, where artists try to dissolve the "I" in otherness !
In Relation in time (October 1977 - No. 5 selection), Marina and Ulay stand for seventeen hours back to back the other. Their hair are tied-between but with the time, they gradually unravel.
All their common work are situated between two poles : male and female. The two artist spoke of themselves as a "androgynous." According to feminist, that concept of androgyny should make equality between male and female possible. Marina and Ulay addressed this problem individually and then in pairs.
I didn't know Impoderabilia before and I found it really interesting because in this art work they do the same work about questioning sexuality but using a different way. They symbolize both sexes not as a unit but distinctly. Their bodies are physically removed and placed one facing the other as to express their differences.
Thanks for this new point of view !
Julie Tiberi