!: Pg. 106 – “We are also and simultaneously encouraged to articulate the ways in which performance . . . begins again and again.” This quote sheds light on how performance is to be both interpreted and experienced, like how our last reading mentioned in regards to history. The notion of performance and the repetition of it creating witnesses that are all different speaks to a different diverse type of history that is overlooked.
I also found the quote about how “the dead just sit up after a while, walk-off, reparticipate in the action” (pg.103) to be a really interesting way of getting at how history repeats itself. Furthermore, after class on Thursday, I believe it’s not just that history repeats itself but that experience reoccurs in various forms.
?: Several times Schneider refers to the archivable object or performance becoming “itself through disappearance” (pg. 104) and this is hard for me to wrap my head around. I understand that even during the facade of absence there can still be visibility and institutions can be created. But to not become yourself till you disappear is abstract; does this mean that something only gains value when it no longer exists? What is something when it has yet to disappear?
!: On page 19, when it said “Lemon does not want to erase the undermachinery of art or the research he has done, instead of presenting it . . . as movement and dramatic dance” this really clicked. When I watch a performance, it can be easier for me to overlook the research put into it and given by it then when I read a textbook. Performace becomes a different thing, to me, when I take the time to recognize all that the performance embodies.
Another quote on page 19 that caught my attention was “Nearly 40 years later, it is just a bridge, a routine piece of infrastructure. Only the observer “knows” of its history, and is there to mark it.” History is all around, both in physical locations and through our interactions in the world. Without the observer, there would be no documentation of the history, but it’s really important to recognize that the observer does not necessarily see or pay attention to the whole history.
Page 20: “Lemon’s citation of the highway number shows that place, as dramatized landscape, becomes an alternate axis, complementing, and perhaps outflanking, that of time.” This quote makes me wonder doesn’t everything exist on an alternate axis (or even multiple ones)? And if so, how do we reconcile the various conflicting images and roles of these different axes? Do we need to recognize the past of a place? How do we do this a way more meaningful than a historical marker?