Jump to content

The Progression of Performance Art in DCI


Recommended Posts

Are we not also 'moral' beings?

And since you contend that the moral is relative, that also indicates you would contend that we cannot hold behaviors based on those relative morals accountable to a solid standard?

So you contend that art is a reflection of that moral and or historical aspect of moral relativity. How then can we determine the legitimacy of someone engaging in a certain behavior and then be able to hold them accountable? Because all they have to do is claim they are engaging in Performance Art, which is a ‘reflection’ of behavior, and eureka they cannot be held accountable by us for their actions.

But are there not respectable standards in presenting performance art which need to be defined? Not by the society, not by the culture, but by a universal standard that 'this particular behavior' is completely and wholly unacceptable for youth whether it is called art or not? (you may now see where I am going with this as it applies to DCI being a youth activity).

I would say that we are beings who believe in morals. You cannot escape the the biological fact that we are all products of sexual intercourse. But there are some twisted people in the world that choose to not be moral at all (or go against what the general society has decided it sees as moral). The fact that these people exist is of course troubling for society but it rubs against the claim that we are "moral beings". During the civil war moral people who morally believed in owning slaves were fighting moral people who morally believed that owning slaves was wrong. What standard was used to settle this moral dilemma?

For many a "solid standard of morals" comes from something that they believe has higher authority on the matter than themselves. Some may use Christian Doctrine, others may use Buddhist Doctrine or Philosophy and yet others may even use a scientific standard for morality. The latter called "The science of morality" which actually goes about using empirical knowledge to create a universal basis for morality. Each avenue through which a person or group of people choose to base their morality on shows that not only is morality relative but that there are multiple "standards" of morality. To debate the "ultimate standard" would involve getting into a religious/science debate in DCP so its better to simply say that there are multiple standards.

You have to ask why we want to be held accountable for doing things that we find immoral? In order to do this we create laws so that by the very nature of being in this state or this country they MUST, with threat of incarceration, follow our moral code. But for those aspects of morality that do not fall under our laws (like adultery in most states) there is really no way you can be held accountable to that moral standard except through the empathy you may feel for your partner. Part of accepting that people have different moral codes than you means (for me) that you can't go around enforcing your own on others or holding others up to a moral code (even if its their own). And I say "you can't" do that but really you can but for me doing THAT is morally wrong. But if they directly or implicitly consent to being held up by a moral code than that's a different story. By being in America you are not morally obligated to do something that in any other country is immoral but being in the country you are obligated to follow laws because you have given your consent by stepping on their ground.

Is there a universal standard that says that 'that particular behavior' is completely and wholly unacceptable for youth whether its called art or not? Yes, but I don't think there is any easy answer to this question but I believe such a standard would hinder on human empathy. Do I need the law, society, or some other organization to tell me that it's wrong? No. Why? Because we can put ourselves in other people's shoes and we generally don't want people to undergo and feel things that we would not want to undergo or feel. It's the same reason I think a lot of people don't go around killing people, or stealing things because we know what if feels like to feel pain and we are biologically programmed to fear death, and we learn how awful it feels to have things taken away that we earned or treasure.

Edited by charlie1223
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if a behavior is technically legal it therefore cannot be defined as depraved or perverse because we are not supposed to project judgments of moral conscience; especially if it is in the realm of art?

defined by whom? is the key question. If you find performing with vomit on your body (completely legal) depraved or perverse then it is that to you. And you can e-mail lady gaga and project judgements of moral conscience onto her. But do we have to feel this way?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

look, we had a bull #### on the matador in VK 88. if it's funny and works within the rules, who cares?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has a lot to do with DCI because many within the activity consume performance art such as Gaga; they relish in that atmosphere; they are specific in their use of the terminology 'performance art' when referring to the direction they would like to see DCI progress toward because millions of fans are engaging in this art with them. However, you do not have to use ‘performance art’ as a model to make the DCI activity accessible to the masses. There are plenty of commercially successful genres apart from ‘performance art’ which do not bathe themselves in the world of narcissistic shock value of debauchery to garner fans.

look....Stu...for all the blather about needing to break new ground, corps continue to to trot out tons of music of dead white guys. relax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

defined by whom? is the key question. If you find performing with vomit on your body (completely legal) depraved or perverse then it is that to you. And you can e-mail lady gaga and project judgements of moral conscience onto her. But do we have to feel this way?

Let’s bring this discussion back into the activity of DCI. For sake of example what if a drum corps design staff decided to create a show concept based on 'Studio 54'. That is not really far-fetched reaching considering concepts like Core of Temptation, The Zone, Cabaret Voltaire, and Constantly Risking Absurdity have been explored. How far should a DCI drum corps performance art be allowed to go in reflecting the actual hedonism which occurred at Studio 54; and who should define what is and is not considered as debauchery, perversion, depravity, et al being presented in their show design?

Edited by Stu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

look....Stu...for all the blather about needing to break new ground, corps continue to to trot out tons of music of dead white guys. relax.

Many of those who created the Dada movement at the Cabaret Voltaire are a bunch of dead guys; many of those who started the Beat Movement are dead; DCI show concepts have recently celebrated both of those movements. Many of those who started modern performance art down the path the Gaga is currently on are also dead; and many who post here on DCP would love to see a corps present a Gaga type show. So yeah, I suppose it is wise for me to just relax and let things progress without questioning where both performance art and DCI may be headed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of those who created the Dada movement at the Cabaret Voltaire are a bunch of dead guys; many of those who started the Beat Movement are dead; DCI show concepts have recently celebrated both of those movements. Many of those who started modern performance art down the path the Gaga is currently on are also dead; and many who post here on DCP would love to see a corps present a Gaga type show. So yeah, I suppose it is wise for me to just relax and let things progress without questioning where both performance art and DCI may be headed.

I agree with you Stu that shows in the future may include some shocking elements from time to time. But it will be rare, because parents are the ultimate judge in this activity. In fact, parents are probably the reason there haven't been far more shocking incidents during shows since the 90s.

However, you are applying a cultural one-drop-rule several times:

- Lady Gaga had someone vomit on her in a show. Therefor Lady Gaga is essentially about vomit. "a Gaga type show"

- The artist was a performance artist. Therefor performance art is essentially a depraved art form. "Down the path..." When you are heading down a path, every part of you gets to the same destination. But this is not true of performance art. Some performance artists try to shock audiences through disgusting acts, but most try to provoke thoughtful ideas, not offense.

- Once some drum corps start doing something shocking, then drum corps will be "down the path" and will therefor essentially be a vomit art form.

But no. Let's say several top 12 corps each year do something really thought provoking and sometimes confusing. But every two years a corps does something offensive (like vomit). It's too bad. But is it worth the trade off?

Absolutely.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s bring this discussion back into the activity of DCI. For sake of example what if a drum corps design staff decided to create a show concept based on 'Studio 54'. That is not really far-fetched reaching considering concepts like Core of Temptation, The Zone, Cabaret Voltaire, and Constantly Risking Absurdity have been explored. How far should a DCI drum corps performance art be allowed to go in reflecting the actual hedonism which occurred at Studio 54; and who should define what is and is not considered as debauchery, perversion, depravity, et al being presented in their show design?

Probably the MPAA. Since there are actually children that attend shows, and kids in the corps, probably the same rules should be applied as there are to movies. Nothing R-rated on the field. Or even PG-13 really outside of violence. There's been no language in shows, no real nudity (BD 92 notwithstanding), no sex, no drug usage. Things are pretty tame in DCI compared to what any kid could see at the movies or flipping through TV channels.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s bring this discussion back into the activity of DCI. For sake of example what if a drum corps design staff decided to create a show concept based on 'Studio 54'. That is not really far-fetched reaching considering concepts like Core of Temptation, The Zone, Cabaret Voltaire, and Constantly Risking Absurdity have been explored. How far should a DCI drum corps performance art be allowed to go in reflecting the actual hedonism which occurred at Studio 54; and who should define what is and is not considered as debauchery, perversion, depravity, et al being presented in their show design?

What if, instead of miming the murders in Phantom Regiment's 2008 Spartacus show, they actually decided to KILL SOMEONE? For realz! :augen51:

Seriously, Stu, what specifically do you envision in your scenario of a Studio 54 show? People miming sex acts on the field? Does anyone remember the 1991 Phantom Regiment (wow, who knew it would be the straight-laced Phantom Regiment pushing all this sex and violence onto the DCI activity?!) and they did "Bacchanale" from Samson and Delilah?

(link, go to 8:45-9:20 in the video to see the portion of the show that depicts a pretty obvious intimation of some fairly graphic sex acts).

Was that OK because they were using more classically-themed music and not something by, say, Madonna? Is there really a difference? There's no mistaking what Phantom was going for in that moment. They were deliberately trying to be provocative, with the intent to depict a drunken orgiastic celebration on the field. (And this storyline was from an opera based on a story in the Old Testament for crying out loud.)

That was over 20 years ago (notice, the crowd went wild). How much influence did that show have on leading other corps down the "path of debauchery" in DCI? You keep bringing up the two Blue Devils shows you seem to have a problem with, stating that the design team was celebrating debauchery. But this was also the same design team who brought us "Get Happy," "Happy Days Are Here Again," and "I Got Rhythm" just one year after the Constantly Risking Absurdity show. It's the same design team who brought us an entire show of Burt Bacharach music a couple years after that. Isn't that indicative of a group of designers who are influenced by a pretty wide variety of artistic endeavors? And that maybe you're reading FARRRRR too much into this whole thing?

Let's hear what you have in mind for your hypothetical Studio 54 show.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...