Camera/Action

This article discusses the disagreements between artists about photography and performance. Performance artists are all about live interaction, and taking still photos of a live action doesn’t seem right to a lot of them. It has been said many times that photographs take away from the authenticity of art, and that is true, if the picture is of a painting or sculpture, however, is the picture is of a performance or the actual picture itself is the art, I think it is fine. Sure, video would be a better choice for documenting a live performance, rather than a few still shots, and better still than no documentation at all. If artists perform and by protesting against commercialism, do not document their performance, it will be lost and a waste of time. The article uses Dennis Oppenheim’s quote “to stretch the limits of what can be done and to show others that art isn’t just making objects to put into galleries,” to support not using photography with performance. Oppenheim is right, but he probably doesn’t realize that [graphic] art is on everything from cereal boxes to vodka bottles, and those things never make it into the galleries. The main problem with cameras in performance art seems to be that people act differently than they normally would when the cameramen show up. The obvious solution to this problem would be to have a hidden camera (video camera) on the scene. I think this would fix all of the inhibitions and objections performance artists have towards the camera.
Artists who do not perform in front of an audience, but only through photography, have a much different situation. They do not have to deal with crowds, only the people looking at the printed pictures. One such artist is Tseng Kwong Chi, who, for example, would dress up as Mao, the Chinese communist leader, and poses in front of American landmarks. The series was called “The Improbable Pilgrim.” ->> http://www.munatseng.org/tsengkwongchi.htm