Comments on: Claude Wampler

By: Dusty Hoesly

Dusty Hoesly — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 11:01:22 +0000

Thank you for replying with comments. I had not really thought about whether Wampler should cut out the planted performers. I guess I agree with Zane that I would be more interested in people’s reactions without the plants. However, the plant I sat next to did create a perhaps-interesting prompt for audience reactions. How do we react when we sit near an obnoxious viewer? Overall, I still think that hearing about this piece is just as engaging/provocative as experiencing it.

By: JaclynJean

JaclynJean — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:25:59 +0000

AGREED. i just posted, before seeing this, a comment to a more recent PICA blogger’s review which referred to Wampler as “one of the most inspiring contemporary performance artists alive.” with all of the other truly inspiring performances i have seen just in this year’s festival alone, i think it is safe to say that she is anything but.
planting people in the audience in order to get the reaction you want is not a way of making people think about their role as audience. it is, however, a way of irritating and disappointing people who came with an earnest desire to see thoughtful art. if a performance makes me want to dance and shout, i will. but if it makes me resent the artist for having so little faith in my unguided perception of her piece then i’ll stay in my seat thank you very much.
i’m not even sure why it is necessary to make people question their role as viewer if it is simply to reiterate what we already know. we came. we sat in the seats. we will engage with the piece if the content warrants it. in other words…we know who we are. we know what our role is. but apparently, the artist does not. i would venture to guess that if, as an artist, you feel the need to remind people that they are supposed to feel something about your art, maybe it isn’t we who are not fulfilling our duty.

By: rs

rs — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:26:53 +0000

WARNING: This performance SUCKS! Yes this was the worst performance I’ve every seen at TBA. All the other performances have been really intriguing, inspiring, stimulating and interesting. This was just plain boring. Don’t waste your time.

By: zanellired

zanellired — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:15:59 +0000

I was at the 8:30 show, and other than not having an extended delay in starting, my experience was the same. There were people who got up and left during the performance. I wanted to leave but was just as curious where it would end. I wanted a chance to go on the journey with the performance, to feel something and experience what was described in the blurb which made me excited to be there in the first place.
I resented the people who were planted to try and trigger reactions. It would have been a more interesting result to see what happens without the chosen few to start the toe-tapping and the “rockin’ out” and finger snapping. If the goal is to see what happens when illusion and reality intermingle in that fashion and to push the limits of an audience’s comfort zone – try letting it be. This felt like a research project where the statistics are skewed from the beginning in favor of what the researcher hopes to achieve.
It was an interesting concept and some of the effects where a cool idea – but it didn’t come together for me. (And I agree about the smoke being not as effective as it could have been.) The performance/presentation started feeling forced and abstract for the sake of abstraction; art? I agree – sure. And I’m glad I didn’t have to give up something else in order to see this one — I would not have been a happy TBA-er if that had been the case. Now I’m just a happy TBA-er who found one performance less than satisfying and a little contrived.

By: zanellired

zanellired — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:13:27 +0000