Order ready-to-submit essays. No Plagiarism Guarantee!
Note: All our papers are written from scratch by human writers to ensure authenticity and originality.
E lit. Module 7- Readings/Viewings – Part A
Verify your essay before you submit. Get an Official Turnitin Report for Just $8.99!
Check your paper with the same Turnitin report your professor uses. AI detection + similarity score without storing your work. Pay once, no subscription
Check My Assignment!What NEED to Do? : Write 300 words about what you learn in this Module and Please talk about the “We Live in Public”
· Module Learning Goals
· Students will watch the documentary film We Live in Public
· Students will consider how surveillance culture and the Internet have created new possibilities for performance art, digital interventions, and audience interactivity
· Students will consider some of the pitfalls and ethical conundrums of making performance work “in public” i.e. online
· Reading
· Please watch the documentary film We Live in Public;
Module 7 Lecture
WE LIVE IN PUBLIC: PERFORMANCE ART AND THE INTERNET
Next week you will be introduced to artists who have made notable performance works on the Internet. Using websites such as YouTube or other streaming sites to reach an audience of hundreds, if not thousands, of viewers, these artists perform in public, often sharing their personal lives with strangers, opening themselves up for empathy and ridicule. Others take on personas and create avatars, all with the goal of reaching an audience beyond the normal art gallery-going crowd. (Of course, performance art intended to reach beyond an art crowd has been around for a long time, with notable performances including Yayoi Kusama’s 1960s happenings in Central Park and the streets of New York City; John Lennon’s and Yoko Ono’s Bed-In; and Marina Abromovic’s and Ulay’s The Lovers, where they walked the length of the Great Wall of China to meet in the middle.)
Yayoi Kusama
But when and where did this type of online public performance art begin? This week you will watch We Live in Public, a documentary that explores the work of Josh Harris, who made his fortune in the 1990s during the dot com boom, and then lost all of his money creating elaborate artworks that explored living ones life in public for an audience as a direct result of surveillance culture and the Internet. His first artwork was called “Quiet.” It was famous in New York City’s downtown circles around the year 2000. Harris asked several dozen people to live in a bunker for 30 days living in “pods” (bunks), with cameras watching their every move.
The second experiment was called “We Live in Public.” For this, Harris put a couple dozen cameras all over his loft and recorded the inevitable breakdown of his love life. After this, Harris moved “off the grid.” (He now has returned to the US and lives in Las Vegas).
People in the chat rooms for “We Live in Public” were vicious to Josh and his then-girlfriend Tanya. They lost their empathy for the people living under video surveillance, and what had started as a fun time playing with surveillance turned into a nightmare. A forewarning: you may find parts of this documentary, include Harris himself and Harris’ experiments, disturbing. The gender and power dynamics in both experiments raise a lot of ethical red flags. These are things we should talk about in our discussion. What happens to empathy when screens intervene between people? How do dominant cultural power dynamics play out when one person calls the shots and the performers sign their lives away? Are we signing any of our rights away when we perform online? Are there ways we can subvert dominant power structures in these spaces, ways that Harris didn’t explore? (This is a question we will consider again next week as you are introduced to artists who, unlike Harris, intend just that). Even as we may critique Harris’ works, I encourage you to also consider what made his works unique and daring, and to consider what performative potentials they possessed (particularly for the time period in which he was working).
Rubrics
– Post comprehensively addresses the topic, adds value to discussion with stimulating posts
– Posts in-depth, incisive reflections that demonstrate critical thinking; shares real-world experiences and examples
– Well-written posts made within required timeframe; no grammar/spelling errors
– Original thinking: making complex connections between multiple readings (from multiple weeks), larger culture and technology and power issues, and the themes of the course. It’s a good idea to give me the impression that you’re doing all the readings, not just one a week. – Bringing up hard questions or contradictions, and really trying to unpack and think through them in depth. – Thoughtful antipathy. You don’t have to like things just because I like them, but if you hate a piece, I want you to think through why exactly you hate it. Dismissing a piece as “boring” will not impress me. – Creative experiments. Please feel very free to play with the post/reply format, and to try out experiments (like imitating the style of stuff you’re reading). Don’t totally substitute a poem for a thoughtful response, but if your thoughtful response is in a stylish format in a way that makes sense
