Final Paper 3 2

The Spectator as a Participant: Dissolving the Spectacle

In ​Society of the Spectacle​, debord poses the issue of “the spectacle,” which is the accumulation of ideals and images belonging to the ruling class. Through sensual and cognitive manipulation, the spectacle convinces society of a false reality in which everyone and everything is united. The goal of the spectacle is to continue to cycle of passivity and subordination of common society to this ruling class; as the spectacle becomes increasingly entwined with reality, society is separated from reality, and consequently from art. On the basis of Debord’s​ Society of the Spectacle​, performance art is essential to dissolving the spectacle and reuniting the spectator with art through participation and the removal of social boundaries. In order to grasp the importance of performance art to society, one must first understand the issue presented in ​Society of the Spectacle.​ Debord initially outlines the phenomenon of the spectacle when he writes “The images detached from every aspect of life fuse in a common stream in which the unity of this life can no longer be reestablished. Reality considered ​partially unfolds, in its own general unity, as a pseudo-world ​apart,​ an object of mere contemplation… The spectacle, in general, as the concrete inversion of life, is the autonomous movement of the nonliving” (SS 2). Debord argues that modern production and the mass reproduction of images create an illusion that shrouds the life of the spectator; this illusion is, in part, driven by the mass assumption that the images represent an actual reality. Once the spectator is convinced that what they see reflects reality, they inevitably lose the ability to distinguish between the spectacle and the reality in which they live. Consequently, reality and the spectacle actually begin to intertwine into an autonomous existence in which the spectacle perpetually bleeds into reality, and vice

versa. Debord reinforces this paradox when he says “The spectacle, grasped in its totality, is both the result and the project of the existing mode of production… it is the heart of the unrealism of the real society” (SS 6). Debord argues that the spectacle is carefully manipulated by the ruling class, or those who already hold significant power in society. “In all its specific forms, as information or propaganda, as advertising or direct entertainment consumption, the spectacle is the present model of socially dominant life. It is the omnipresent affirmation of the choice already made in the production and its corollary consumption” (SS 6). If this is the case, then it is seemingly impossible for society to break away from the spectacle and its subsequent effect on the lives of the spectators; the spectacle is essentially a reflection of the ideals of those who hold power. As the spectacle is absorbed by society and intertwined in the lives of the common people, it becomes increasingly easy for the ruling class to instill its own institutions in the life of society. The media simply tells people to act according to what they see in the mass produced images that are placed in front of them. In other words, the spectacle is mediated in a manner that discourages people from deviating from the societal mean, thus extinguishing any potential for the exchange of legitimately new thought or discourse. According to Debord, “The society which rests on modern industry is not is not accidentally or superficially spectacular, it is fundamentally spectaclist. In the spectacle, which is the image of the ruling economy, the goal is nothing, development everything. The spectacle aims at nothing other than itself” (SS 14). In this passage, Debord highlights his belief that modern industry is essentially related to the spectacle; the goal of the ruling economy is, of course, to continue possessing the power to mediate the lower classes. Therefore, the only aim of

modern production is to continue a system of mediation and marginalization of society for its own gain. The spectacle, itself, is effectively the primary product of modern industry, over any of the individual images or tangible goods. Taking this into consideration, the spectacle creates an apparently endless cycle of production and consumption of the spectacle purely for the sake of keeping the cycle in unwavering motion. The influence of the spectacle on the realm of art can be explained, in part, by the idea of separation. While Debord mentions various examples of separation as consequences of the spectacular society, he makes it abundantly clear that separation is both its aim and effect. This separation is expressed by Debord when he writes: “The spectacle presents itself simultaneously as all of society, as part of society, and as instrument of unification.​ As a part of society it is specifically the sector which concentrates all gazing and all consciousness. Due to the very fact that this sector is separate, it is the common ground of the deceived gaze and of false consciousness, and the unification it achieves is nothing but an official language of generalized separation” (SS 3). The spectacle takes over the senses and consciousness and begins to resemble reality to the point at which it is difficult to even differentiate between spectacting and living. In effect, this separates the spectator from reality and living, entirely. The same sentiment can be applied to the world of art; the spectator no longer wishes to engage in participation or even thoughtful observation in their artistic experience; they are merely a passive spectator of that which is placed directly in front of their eyes. They seek no new underlying meaning or self-revelations in art; on the contrary, they mindlessly consume the messages and images that are hand-fed to them

by the class that only wishes to oppress them for its own benefit. Therefore, the spectator is completely separated from the art. Not only does this separation take away the possibility of critical or intellectual evaluation of art, but it also diminishes any true senses, emotions, and even basic dialectical interactions with art. The spectacle is fundamentally designed to engulf both the senses and the consciousness of the spectator. The spectacle, being a pseudo-world apart and an inverse reality, effectively overcomes the spectator and inevitably shapes their behavior and interactions in society. Them of the spectacle’s influence on society is the complete separation of the spectator from art, through the illusion of unification. In the context of art in the twenty-first century, the spectacle is prevalent to a staggering degree. In the age of social media and worldwide mass communication, the illusion of unity thrives in the convenience of “communicating” with anybody, anywhere and at any time. This apparent connectedness that society believes in creates a separation between people and reality. This same phenomenon occurs with society and art. The ease of accessibility and technological reproduction of art delude people into believing that they have the entire world of art at their fingertips; however, modern society continues to become increasingly disconnected from any true aesthetic experience. Reproductions of art are merely devalued copies of it. These devalued copies of the art become overwhelmingly accessible to society; the more that society is exposed to these reproductions of art, the less capable it is of engaging with art in general. Images are reproduced and accessed so easily that even the original works of art lose meaning to society. The illusion of accessibility, in turn, results in a society deprived of any actual participation with art, whatsoever.

The aesthetic deprivation of social activity can be reversed by reuniting the spectator with the art; the vehicle for this reunion is social participation in art. Therefore, performance art is essential to dissolving the spectacle, as the spectators are, by definition, participants in the creation of the performance art. In performance art, the possibilities of reflection and new thought are born; in putting this living art in front of the spectator, and vice versa, the spectator is able to be fully immersed in the art, both sensually and intellectually. The all-encaptivating nature of performance art makes it a necessary replacement of the spectacle. Performance art, in comparison to the spectacle, fully captivates the spectator and skews the lines between life and art. However, the way in which performance art deviates from the spectacle is that it aims merely at the situational involvement and participation of the spectator. The spectacle does the exact opposite with its power of immersion; it is created merely to make the spectator a passive observer of the manipulated reality in which they live. The beauty of performance art is that by making the spectator a participant in the art, the aesthetic experience of the spectator cannot be mediated or manipulated by anyone but themselves. One of the most notable performance artists, Marina ​Abramović, intimately portrays the relationship between spectator and the artist in her works; in her work ​Rhythm 0​ (1974), Abromović placed a wide array of items, ranging from a feather to a gun with a single bullet, on a table in front of her. She remained still for six hours straight while spectators were encouraged to do to her as they pleased with any of the items on the table. Throughout the course of the performance, she was stripped naked, cut with knives, and held at gunpoint by spectators. By the end of the performance, she was covered in marker scribbles, bandages and cuts. In this work, specifically, the actions of some of the participants were certainly not positive ones; however, it

was precisely the freedom and situational opportunity given to the participants that made ​Rhythm 0​ an effective piece. Once the six hour performance was over, Abramović promptly got up and walked away. When considered to be the human being that she actually is, it is not surprising that she did such a thing. However, some of the spectators responded in near disbelief; for the past six hours, she was merely an object on which they could release their (often barbaric) inner desires. Abromović’s transition from object to human was one that some participants realized with horror, or at least with some degree of horror. A number of messages can be interpreted from ​Rhythm 0,​ such as societal objectification of women or the vicious tendencies of humans in positions of power, but the most important aspect of the piece was Abromović’s willingness to entirely put the power in the hands of the participants. The participants were given an invaluable insight into themselves and into one another. Abromović never told anybody what to do or how to feel about; the spectators, when put in the position of participants, inevitably came to these self-realizations on their own. This is the essence of performance art.