3 comments for this entry:
  1. Joyelle McSweeney

    I am interested in what La Gaga has to say here because I think she’s right in many ways– Abromavich has a kind of limitless perspective AS WELL AS an art practice that depends upon limits– limits which never seem to actually circumscribe the art they produce, so that there’s always an excess production. Similarly, when the audience is invited in to introduce alternate intensities/alterities into the field of the piece which are then countered by a responding intensity or else warp the composition in their direction– i.e. someone tries to shoot her, someone else grabs the gun. She carves a star in her stomach and yet there is no end to that action– nothing is reversible, yet nothing is indelible, yet nothing leaves the system, yet nothing is permanent– maybe?

  2. Carina Finn

    abramovic is a B*tCh who’s not afraid of her self, which I think is essential to her limitlessness but it also constructs the limits that allow her to make her art, like j said. her body, her being, her “self” is her art. she presents herself as an open text, which is always already in constant flux because it is a body with constantly moving systems within systems…her art is total but it is mortal because when her body dies the art will die & leave behind a multitude of ghosts in the form of images, videos, texts, etc…so it’s not permanent but maybe it’s eternal?

  3. adam strauss

    I like this: “so it’s not permanent but maybe it’s eternal?”