In this essay I return to one of the themes of my newsletter, sharing research on artists who have decided to withdraw from the art world. I continue with Lee Lozano, whom I first introduced in Issue #24. If you’re not familiar with Lozano’s practice, the introduction therein may provide useful.
First, a word on ‘relational aesthetics’ and Fluxus
Back in 2015 I had a breakthrough about what forms I wanted use in my art practice. Interviewing, conversing, and ‘doing with’ participants made sense, as did the term ‘relational aesthetics’ coined by French curator and art critic Nicolas Bourriaud in 1996. Relational aesthetics pointed to a turn in art that favoured participation, experience, and the whole of human relations. Bourriaud said:
“The role of artworks is no longer to form imaginary and utopian realities, but to actually be ways of living and models of action within the existing real, whatever scale chosen by the artist.”
This was not a completely new concept as even before then Fluxus was bubbling up in the early 60s as a new genre of artists became dissatisfied with conventional art making, the gallery system, and the art market. Fluxus represented an international network of artists and composers who shared an avant-garde attitude about what art could be. George Maciunas, the founder of Fluxus, said that the purpose of Fluxus was to “promote a revolutionary flood and tide in art, promote living art, anti-art.” Fluxus was not a style but an attitude often employing whatever materials were on hand and staging unconventional performances. Yoko Ono’s Cut Piece (1964), which was recently on view as video documentation at the Vancouver Art Gallery, is a wonderful example. Cut Piece invited participation while also creating discomfort and raising questions around violence against women and gender roles, amongst others. Observers became participants and vice versa—a feedback loop. Public spectacle became a site from which to give permission but also offered the audience a choice to act, or not act.
Viewing the video (which is the documentation, not the piece itself) while seated in a room of the gallery still provides a visceral experience. Today we can also see this work online, but, I find, this form of accessing the work diminishes the effect of shared experience, of witnessing uncomfortable acts as some audience members approach the stage to slowly cut off a piece of Ono’s clothing--which they could keep. The video shows part of the performance. Ono remained still until she was down to her underwear.1
Lee Lozano (1930-1999)
This was the art milieu that Lee Lozano was exposed to, as well as Conceptual art where ‘the idea’ suffices as the work of art . There is no doubt that Lozano chose her “own scale” to develop this part of her practice. In May 1969, Lozano conjured a name for the work she had been doing along her drawing and painting practice. “Life-Art” which later became “Life-Situation-Art” would refer to her ephemeral everyday pieces that took the experience of a moment, or limited moments, as a dematerialized art form. Life as art, no materials, just actions, feelings, emotions, experiencing, and sometimes just ideas as works.2
Three Life-Art Pieces
In 1969 Lozano was working on several Life-Art pieces, here are three that contained actions:
General Strike Piece (1969), started February 8 – ended June 12
GRADUALLY BUT DETERMINEDLY AVOID BEING PRESENT AT OFFICIAL OR PUBLIC “UPTOWN” FUNCTIONS OR GATHERINGS RELATED TO THE “ART WORLD” IN ORDER TO PURSUE INVESTIGATION OF TOTAL PERSONAL & PUBLIC REVOLUTION. EXHIBIT IN PUBLIC ONLY PIECES WHICH FURTHER SHARING OF IDEAS & INFORMATION RELATED TO TOTAL PERSONAL & PUBLIC REVOLUTION.Withdrawal Piece (1969), February 8
PULL OUT OF A SHOW AT DICK BELLAMY’S TO AVOID HANGING WITH WORK THAT BRINGS YOU DOWN.Dialogue Piece (1969): started April 21 – ended December 18
General Strike Piece and Withdrawal Piece prioritized pulling away from the art world and were essentially a refusal of the art market and the emotions it raised. But Dialogue Piece, which was acted out concurrently, seems to run counter to these two pieces—to a certain extent.
As with all her ‘pieces’, Dialogue Piece was process and action-oriented and lasted almost eight months. It exists today in the form of instructions to herself, with defined parameters and notes documenting phone calls to book meetings, and dialogues that occurred face-to-face—not the content of the dialogue (that was confidential) but when, with whom, and briefly about what, and sometimes including an assessment of the dialogue. This documentation resulted in a total of seven notebook pages, 27.9 x 21.6cm (8.5 x 11 inches).
As usual, the instructions are handwritten in Lozano’s characteristic capitalized script.
CALL (OR SPEAK TO/WRITE) PEOPLE FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE
OF INVITING THEM TO YR LOFT FOR A DIALOGUE.
IN PROCESS FOR THE REST OF ‘LIFE.’
As this was a piece in process, the instructions evolved, and notes were added to clarify new parameters. For example, after seven calls to book meetings or encounters, Lozano adds a note:
NOTE: THE PURPOSE OF THIS PIECE IS TO HAVE A DIALOGUE WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSS. NOT TO MAKE A PIECE. ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION EXCHANGED DURING DIALOGUE WILL BE PROTECTED BY MY CONFIDENCE. IF ANYONE WISHES IDEAS TO BE PASSED ON I SHALL COMPLY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
In other words, “no double loading of events.” The ephemeral experience shall remain the work.
Who did she call and meet? Ironically, she called on a large swath of the avant-garde in New York where she lived at the time: artists, curators, gallerists and other players, as well as her mother. Dialogue Piece pulled people back into her orbit, but it did so without the refusal implied in the other two pieces. Dialogue Piece seems full of potential. It did not operate under the artist vs. the observer art convention, instead it made “both participants artist & observer simultaneously;” it was not for sale, not difficult to make, inexpensive to make, “it can never be completely understood”, it was unpredictable and predictable at the same time… Dialogue Piece favoured interactions with her contemporaries rather than production for the art market.
IN FACT, THE PIECE APPROACHES HAVING EVERYTHING I ENJOY OR SEEK ABT ART, AND IT CANNOT BE PUT IN A GALLERY, ALTHOUGH SOME ASPECTS OF IT COULD BE ‘EXHIBITED’ IF SO DESIRED. […] WHAT IF I STOPPED DOING DIFFERENT PIECES & JUST DID THE DIALOGUE PIECE FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE AS MY ‘WORK’? I COULD MOVE TO AN EXOTIC PLACE & DO IT THERE; IT HAS NO SPACE OR TIME BOUNDARIES.
Here, I suspect, artists inclined towards action-oriented, or life-art pieces may have had similar thoughts at one point or another, as I myself have. Unfortunately, or naturally for Lozano, this exuberant tone was temporary, as Lozano was already planning for a new piece titled Dropout, which points to a return to her previous, or concurrent, direction—towards refusal.
Even though the documentation is not the work, Lozano’s notes merit attention for their unfiltered and creative expression:
DR. BRUTTEN, A CHILD PSYCHOLOGIST, WANTED TO TALK ABOUT ART & I WANTED TO TALK ABT PSYCHOLOGY, WHICH SEEMS LIKE CONDITIONS FAVOURABLE TO A GOOD DIALOGUE
FRED GUTZEIT & I HAVE INSTANT GOOD SCORPIO COMMUNICATION
ED SHOSTAK, AN OLD FRIEND, GIVES A VERY GENEROUS & HIGH-INFO DIALOGUE WHICH I ENJOYED
DINE AT ED & CINDY FELDMAN’S WHERE THE MOST EXQUISITE DIALOGUE TAKES PLACE
Lozano was not the first to work with dialogue, but she did bring a unique quality, humour, and delight to her performance, sorry, actions, and documentation of the work. Lozano did not like the word performance which assumes an audience, as in Yoko Ono’s Cut Piece. Her work was conducted in private, as life-art experiments, not for an audience and not in a presentation setting such as a gallery.3
It is this ethos that I want to take as inspiration to propose a contemporary and alternative form of dialogue that reflects our present moment and some of Lozano’s ideals.
PROPOSAL FOR: Dialogue Piece, very loosely after Lee Lozano
For a limited time (to be determined for how long) I will be available for Zoom dialogues. This is offered as pre-booked 1-1 Zoom sessions of 30 minutes long.
Lozano did not talk about how she would survive as an artist other than selling earlier works, which consisted of drawings and paintings. Most of her life-art pieces were clearly not for sale. Since I don't have a material practice to support my immaterial practice and since we live in different times, I have come up with my own ways of doing Dialogue Piece and of supporting the work.
RULES FOR DIALOGUE PIECE
Participants help create the piece by contributing $10 for a 30-minute dialogue session.
We meet over Zoom--the technology of our times. This means I can talk to anyone in the world!
Our time together will not be scripted by me, but you may want to share something about yourself, or ask that we talk about something specific before we meet.
I may or may not oblige in regards to your topic choice.
Our conversation and your identity remains private and will not be recorded.
Documentation will be created by keeping a written record of the date, time, the topic(s), and the quality of the conversation.
The rules may change as the piece progresses.
If this suits you, head over here to begin the process of booking a session for Dialogue Piece, very loosely after Lee Lozano.
Lastly, I wish Lozano would have continued with Dialogue Piece. Dropout Piece marked the beginning of the end of Lozano’s intense but troubled life.
Some of the background about Fluxus and Yoko One is sourced from theartstory.org.
For the context of dialogue pieces created during Conceptual art, see this MOMA essay.
To understand Lee Lozano’s life and work, I leaned heavily on Sarah Lehrer-Graiwer’s research which she writes about in her book Lee Lozano: Dropout Piece (2014)—currently out of print. I borrowed this book through an inter-library loan from Emily Carr University.