Jump to content

The Progression of Performance Art in DCI


Recommended Posts

Again, I said it is 'slowly and incrementally' becoming more and more accepted; not that is has been a huge altering of the activity in short order.

So what's your timeline then? We start seeing "depravity" and vomit on the field in 10 years? 20? 50? You seem to think this is going to happen in some hypothetical future DCI, but have no idea of when or if it will actually happen. The majority of themed or storied shows are positive and uplifting in nature, because we like seeing the good guy/girl win in the end. People don't like to back a loser (except for Astros fans). Just a few examples in 40+ years of DCI doesn't mean it's increasing, it means people wanted to test a concept, and it doesn't seem to have caught on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it legal in that country? Does it personally effect me? Is it deemed acceptable in that country? If so, people's decision to partake in said acts is between them and their own higher power, not me. I have no interest in ever going to Thailand, so I don't plan on being apart of said activities. I don't have to agree with it, but I'm more interested in living my own life and making my own decisions instead of trying to dictate what someone else does.

All I ask you to understand through our exchanges is that please realize this philosophy of yours 'has' to apply to your view of the organization Jeff Ream does not want me to name if it ever becomes legal in North America. Because as for me, even if it ever becomes socially acceptable and legal anywhere in the world, I will still call it debauchery, depravity, ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I ask you to understand through our exchanges is that please realize this philosophy of yours 'has' to apply to your view of the organization Jeff Ream does not want me to name if it ever becomes legal in North America. Because as for me, even if it ever becomes socially acceptable and legal anywhere in the world, I will still call it debauchery, depravity, ...

How very "perception is reality" of you. Hahahaha!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I ask you to understand through our exchanges is that please realize this philosophy of yours 'has' to apply to your view of the organization Jeff Ream does not want me to name if it ever becomes legal in North America. Because as for me, even if it ever becomes socially acceptable and legal anywhere in the world, I will still call it debauchery, depravity, ...

That's your personal ability to call if whatever you want to call it. That's fine, that's what personal liberties are all about. But what i don't agree with is trying to paint your opinion as the correct one, some people are obviously okay with those behaviors or else they wouldn't exist. The world is a pretty good place if you look at life half-full. Still have no idea what group you're talking about, but I'm assuming it's one you don't approve of, so let's just leave it there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I respect your opinion; but here is a test to see if you actually believe what you just wrote: If 'society' gets to the point of accepting the organization Jeff Ream wants me to not name, will you still hold true to your moral relativity if they bring that behavior into the world of performance art? Or is there a point, which may be in a different spot than mine, but is there a point where you will stand for some sort of moral absolute in the realm of performance art?

I know what organization you are talking about but in order to respond to your question thoughtfully my comments may seem odd to someone not in the loop. In the middle ages girls as young as 12 were given away as wives to occasionally significantly older gentlemen and at the time this was not considered debauchery or taboo. Why? Today we have a more scientific understanding of a child's mental cognizance and growth and how that effects their ability to make choices and we understand more intimately the consequence of sexual relationships and pregnancy in general and at a young age. As a result we have the laws that we do because much of society today hinges on the simple idea that two parties must always have the ability to consent before engaging in nearly any kind of social or private contract and our society rightly so has decided for many reasons minors do not have the ability to give consent.

So when you ask "if society gets to a point of accepting the organization" you are really saying that in this hypothetical situation society has decided that either minors do have the ability to give consent (which goes against scientific evidence) or that private and social contracts no longer require the consent of the people which are involved in said contracts. So if we are in a society that believes I can pay you money to sleep in your house without you consenting to rent your house to me then I am not sure how to answer your question. I imagine that in a society as topsy turvy as the one you presuppose it would be a matter of moral relatively. But as for me I am a part of a society that (for the most part) relies on biological and psychological evidence to construct its laws and think that consent and the ability to offer it is paramount.

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

I know what organization you are talking about but in order to respond to your question thoughtfully my comments may seem odd to someone not in the loop. In the middle ages girls as young as 12 were given away as wives to occasionally significantly older gentlemen and at the time this was not considered debauchery or taboo. Why? Today we have a more scientific understanding of a child's mental cognizance and growth and how that effects their ability to make choices and we understand more intimately the consequence of sexual relationships and pregnancy in general and at a young age. As a result we have the laws that we do because much of society today hinges on the simple idea that two parties must always have the ability to consent before engaging in nearly any kind of social or private contract and our society rightly so has decided for many reasons minors do not have the ability to give consent.

So when you ask "if society gets to a point of accepting the organization" you are really saying that in this hypothetical situation society has decided that either minors do have the ability to give consent (which goes against scientific evidence) or that private and social contracts no longer require the consent of the people which are involved in said contracts. So if we are in a society that believes I can pay you money to sleep in your house without you consenting to rent your house to me then I am not sure how to answer your question. I imagine that in a society as topsy turvy as the one you presuppose it would be a matter of moral relatively. But as for me I am a part of a society that (for the most part) relies on biological and psychological evidence to construct its laws and think that consent and the ability to offer it is paramount.

Thank you for that well thought out and lucid reply; and I mean that!!! Now let’s move your basis for presenting that position over to the world of art. At what point would the presentation of those issues in 'artistic terms' be deemed as unacceptable and depraved? Or should artists be allowed to present any thing in any light in any way possible because they 'call it' art?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True in that Boston’s ‘Core’ did not utilize actual sex, and also true that the BD show did not go far into presenting real Dada. But the celebration of temptation of sex and the celebration of what occurred at the real Cabaret Voltaire were presented in a positive light. All of which points to show concept designs moving into the direction of celebrating the gutter instead of rejoicing the heavens; and it is being implemented, and accepted, slowly within the realm of DCI in an incremental manner.

celebrating the "gutter" or celebrating our world? Are we not sexual beings? Doesn't our species go extinct if we stop having sex? The shamefulness and modesty that we feel about sex is an arbitrary bench mark for what is moral and its the reason why you may be referring to it as the "gutter". The acceptance of these shows in DCI is not the beginning of a downward slope and art itself is not a continuum which inevitably unravels in a moral debauchery. In today's society when you read stories like Lady Gaga performing in Vomit or see shows about the Cabaret Voltaire its more an expression of how much of our world we are actually able to experience and indulge in rather than it being an indication of where the world is headed. With 24 hour profit driven news networks, blogs, youtube, facebook and the internet is there anything we don't know about today's society? Does our overwhelming knowledge of what exactly the human race is capable of disgust, frighten and shock us? But we can't look at the scope of human history and say that ours is anymore disgusting, frightening or shocking especially if we didn't have nydailynews to tell us what actually happened in that Mesopotamian hut or Aztec temple.

To me, that we can have this large breadth of shows and show themes and that art expression can be disgusting, frightening and shocking shows a greater growth and respect for humans as free-thinkers who are above the arbitrary stigmas that Art may have on society. If DCI only did shows about "praising the heaven" does that really make us morally superior? but more importantly does that really mean anything if we did?

Edited by charlie1223
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

celebrating the "gutter" or celebrating our world? Are we not sexual beings?

Are we not also 'moral' beings?

The shamefulness and modesty that we feel about sex is an arbitrary bench mark for what is moral and its the reason why you may be referring to it as the "gutter".

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?

The acceptance of these shows in DCI is not the beginning of a downward slope and art itself is not a continuum which inevitably unravels in a moral debauchery. In today's society when you read stories like Lady Gaga performing in Vomit or see shows about the Cabaret Voltaire its more an expression of how much of our world we are actually able to experience and indulge in rather than it being an indication of where the world is headed. With 24 hour profit driven news networks, blogs, youtube, facebook and the internet is there nothing we don't know about today's society? Does our overwhelming knowledge of what exactly the human race is capable of disgust, frighten and shock us? But we can't look at the scope of human history and say that ours is anymore disgusting, frightening or shocking especially if we didn't have nydailynews to tell us what actually happened in that Mesopotamian hut or Aztec temple.

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.

To me, that we can have this large breadth of shows and show themes and that art expression can be disgusting, frightening and shocking shows a greater growth and respect for humans as free-thinkers who are above the arbitrary stigmas that Art may have on society. If DCI only did shows about "praising the heaven" does that really make us morally superior? but more importantly does that really mean anything if we did?

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).

Edited by Stu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for that well thought out and lucid reply; and I mean that!!! Now let’s move your basis for presenting that position over to the world of art. At what point would the presentation of those issues in 'artistic terms' be deemed as unacceptable and depraved? Or should artists be allowed to present any thing in any light in any way possible because they 'call it' art?

Art is not bound by anything, except the law. People are free to break the law to express their art if they feel their art is worth the inescapable consequences. (Until we find precogs and establish"PreCrime" as in Minority Report than people will not have the freedom they once did to break the law!) So when I say that an artist should be allowed to present anything in any light in any way possible because they call it art I do take into consideration that the cops may be following them if they do. I'm against people breaking the law (in most cases) not against people expressing themselves in the name of art because I don't feel that any kind of self expression is of any significance to me unless I allow it be significant to me or if I am a part of the art. Any kind of reverberating effects that result from the art being performed rarely have any affect on my own life and those that do are likely against the law. I can always choose how I want to be effected by someone's art as in I can choose to ignore it or I can give it more significance than it actually ever had in the first place (like most actually is)

Now breaking the law would make the presentation of those issues even in artistic terms unacceptable of course. If we take the law out of the equation would it be depraved art? To most yes. To others no. In the 1300's Europe it wouldn't (though probably because it was art not about Christianity). In 2014 North America it would. For me I don't see how my moral conscience is any better than anyone else's morality, but that doesn't mean I can't strongly dislike someone else's idea of what is moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art is not bound by anything, except the law. People are free to break the law to express their art if they feel their art is worth the inescapable consequences. (Until we find precogs and establish"PreCrime" as in Minority Report than people will not have the freedom they once did to break the law!) So when I say that an artist should be allowed to present anything in any light in any way possible because they call it art I do take into consideration that the cops may be following them if they do. I'm against people breaking the law (in most cases) not against people expressing themselves in the name of art because I don't feel that any kind of self expression is of any significance to me unless I allow it be significant to me or if I am a part of the art. Any kind of reverberating effects that result from the art being performed rarely have any affect on my own life and those that do are likely against the law. I can always choose how I want to be effected by someone's art as in I can choose to ignore it or I can give it more significance than it actually ever had in the first place (like most actually is)

Now breaking the law would make the presentation of those issues even in artistic terms unacceptable of course. If we take the law out of the equation would it be depraved art? To most yes. To others no. In the 1300's Europe it wouldn't (though probably because it was art not about Christianity). In 2014 North America it would. For me I don't see how my moral conscience is any better than anyone else's morality, but that doesn't mean I can't strongly dislike someone else's idea of what is moral.

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?

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...