Luciana Achugar

Heh, I made it. She doesn't appear to be wearing any panties. For some reason that doesn't excite me. Maybe it's the ADHD punctuated by seizures.

Crap.

I only made to just over 30 seconds. I suspect that the swinging back and forth and then lying motionless on the floor could be reproduced with a noose. I wonder if she'd be willing to try that?

Pearls before swine.

The first two minutes reminded me of a Terry Gilliam animation. The rest was just boring.

I saw the performance live at the Kitchen in NYC. It was one of the most beautiful performances I saw that year.

I shudder to think what the others were. Seriously, what do you get out of this? Is there supposed to be some meaning? Does she explain it? Are you inspired by the grace? Do you expect it to be remembered in years to come for some profound insight or message? Or does the emperor have no clothes?

OINK!

I managed 1:38 before deciding I simply did not care to interpret the performance. I do not "know" art, however, I know what engages me. This work engaged me with the stop function. The New York street performance artist did not fair much better. 1:21 in to the video and I had the sudden urge to see if my cat's litter box needed changing.
agent j

I skipped around a bit. The arm movements at approximately 6:30 is interesting. But alas, my mind is to simple to interpret the underlying meaning of any of this.

This ten minute segment is from the middle of a hourlong live performance created for the stage. This video is not art. It is not intended to stand alone as art. It is simply a record of a live event, and as such it is incomplete. It is hard to engage with it in this format.
Seeing this work live, I was moved by it on many levels. The work is primal, visceral, animalistic. I watched it not as an anthropologist trying to understand its meaning, but as an ex-patriot returning home, to a more natural state of being, my heart filled with nostalgia.
To me art should not be easy to understand. Art should knock us out of our comfort zones. Art must challenge the viewer and the creator. In a world that prizes easily digested pop culture, channeling a primal self is a radical act, even within the contemporary NYC art scene.
In attempting to understand a work of art while we are experiencing it, we take ourselves out of the work. But if we allow ourselves to be transported, the work can change us and make us feel something, even if we don't understand it -- or not.

Just a question, please. Do you hold a degree or have you ever received any academic training in how to recognize art or were taught what one is supposed to enjoy from the art scene?

Every one of the links in the artist's home page just led to a "related links" page. I really wanted to read the "bio" and the "press".

It's a shame they could only afford one lightbulb in the beginning. During intermission, a patron went to cvs and bought more. Thus, we were able to witness the brave lack of talent, equally shared between her and Olaf, her "dance" partner, ( who has wanted to get into her pants all semester). Here's hoping her student loans are less than her thighs

So the emperor has no clothes. I guess there's knocking you out of your comfort zone, then there's smacking you in the face with a 2x4 and rummaging through your pockets. There's stuff that nudges you, leads you to think if you're receptive, then there's some spaz jumping around that just makes you feel obligated to express "appreciation", as much to convince yourself, as to convince the others in the room, that you're "sophisticated" (know what the hell is going on). Guess what, the rest of them are doing the same thing.

Armanda (did your mommy really think you should be provided with weapons?), you really, really miss the point.

If I heard a single movement of a Bach cantata, I'd still be moved by the utter beauty and humanity, even if it was one of the middle ones.
If I saw just three figures of Rembrandt's Night Watch, or even of Picasso's Guernica, I'd be convinced of his artistic talent.
If I read one chapter of a Wodehouse book, I'd find something to laugh at even if I had not the slightest clue of the plot of the complete book.

Real artists create art in every part of their works, not just in the *ahem*bollock*ahem* "Grand Concept".

And therefore, if people see just a part of Luciana's work, they'd find... bullshit.

If your precious performer can't bring out even a shadow of her meaning and artistic worth in a part of her work, then, sorry, there isn't any in the whole, either. Sure, there may be more art in the whole than there is in a part, but if there isn't any artistic worth in the part, if an excerpt reminds people of pails of manure, rotten tomatoes, and naked emperors, then trust me, the whole will only be six times bugger-all, not a sudden epiphany of magnificence.

And no amount of hipster-talk will cure that.

I am not a musician. I am not a dancer. I am not an artist. I am not a psychologist. I like reading about how we navigate perception, and going to see live performances with friends (as well many other things).

I became aware of my interest in how we see and talk about new experiences when I first encountered Mongolian overtone singing also known as throat singing. When I saw this kind of music performed for the first time, I felt as if I was in the presence of a person who was in touch with ancient spirits that existed outside my ability to see, and I was mesmerized. My best friend had a very different experience. She thought it was weird, and if it was “traditional” it should have been left behind in the trash bin of history (her words, not mine). Other friends who also saw the performance reacted with indifference and apathy, more interested in what others were wearing and who was sitting next to this or that boy. One classmate, completely ignored the music (big assumption on my part) and spent her time making sketches of the robes that the monks wore.

———————

As for “the emperor’s clothes”

- I always assume the artist’s genuine need to express him/herself in a very particular way.

- I always assume that MY response to any given work of art (or anything in the world) is personal and my responsibility.

- I share my responses and opinions not to impress you, but in the hope of broadening your experiences, thus increasing your enjoyment of the world.

- I do not assume that people use snark when confronted by something they do not understand to mask perceived shortcomings, thus I try to respond genuinely and generously.

… but yes, I do engage in a bit of snark from time to time, because it’s easy fun.

Richard Bos -- I am glad that you respond to those works the way you do.

What I am responding to is the assumption that if you or I do not like a particular work that there is a failure of the artist. Some people find the works of Picasso or Shakespeare to be complete bull-shit, does that make it so? Of course not.
I am open to my friend's interpretations of Shakespeare, and they have taken me to see productions that I enjoyed, but for the most part I find his work impenetrable -- the difference here is that I take responsibility for not caring enough to understand his work. It's the difference between saying "I don't like Shakespeare" and saying "Shakespeare sucks."

The failure of the artist is not in whether I "like" the work. The style of Guernica (and Picasso generally) annoys me, but the message shows itself. It has become one little piece in my attitude toward blind militarism. Fascinating history; this gave me the opportunity to give my son a clear picture, so +1 to ya.

My wife (RIP) was bewildered by Shakespeare, while I was laughing freely at the comedy. The language may be a barrier, but if you overcome that, there is much delight to be had.

One girlfriend was sitting at our museum of art, admiring a canvas. When I arrived, I broke the spell by saying it could as well have been his dropcloth. And it could have, less footprints.

My question was, did he visualize what he had painted before he started, and was what he painted a fair approximation of what he'd visualized? If not, he's just wanking with paint, and as much as he tries to rationalize what he's done, it's all bollocks. Likewise Luciana, IMHO.

You can't define what makes this exercise valuable, it's not intrinsically obvious, she hasn't explained it as far as I know, so all I can go by is what I see, someone self-defined as an "artist" doing "stuff" in search of grant money. Is it any wonder the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is questioned?

If all you want is to see someone running around on the stage, fine, (and pay for it yourself) and like it if you do, but don't try to read more into it than what's there.

Armanda,

I think you said it all when you said that everyone of your friends were doing something else rather than "enjoying" the performance. It seems that you are that soul who says that the whole world is insane and you are the only sane one. Here in the midwest, if there is B.S. lying in the pasture and it smells and looks like B.S. we don't do a taste test. I believe your taste in art has possibly been soured by too much testing