It's a very tricky question that I think a lot about these days.
What do we rebel against? What must we know in order to move on?
What influences do we accept, which do we deny?
And - and this might be the rub for me at the moment - when and why do we change our minds about the answers above?
-
This comes up today as I look up Yvonne Rainer's "No Manifesto" and find this:
corpus: When you refer to your NO-manifesto from 1965, where you asked for a lot of clarification, do you think this need for clarification asks for hybridization after a while?
Rainer: The NO-manifesto is brought up over and over again. I wish it could be buried ... I came to it at the end of an essay about a particular work, "Parts of Some Sextets", which was a piece for ten people and twelve mattresses in 1965, I never meant for the manifesto to be prescriptive. Manifestos are meant to clear the air and challenge, and then their usefulness is over. I myself haven't abided by that manifesto, and I don't expect anyone else to, either. But it's always brought up, I don't know ... It's no longer useful - or maybe it is. Someone else should write a manifesto about what's going on now.
corpus: A young Danish choreographer, Mette Ingvartsen, wrote a YES-manifesto about two years ago.
on the rewriting there is also this:
Maybe to spectacle. Maybe to virtuosity. Maybe to transformations and magic and make believe. Maybe to glamour and transcendency of the star image. . . . Maybe to moving or being moved.
from Artforum
Which all made me go back to a discussion from 2004 about the same Rainer quote in which I replaced "no" with "not quite"
All of which makes me wonder about how to look back on our own histories...
I don't have answers (or maybe even complete thoughts) -
please feel free to comment
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment