You could sit in a chair and do nothing but stare at people 8 hrs a day for 3 months straight? I know I couldn't.

These "performance artists," they make a lot of money? Cuz for the right amount, yeah, I could do that. And fully agree with OhioOrrin, and I would add "music" to that as well. Which covers most of the garbage coming out these days.

Perhaps it was cool, but was it "art"? I have a real problem with the definition of art, especially "performance" art. I see a danger in allowing people this much latitude. Example: The museum in South America which featured an exhibit of a live dog chained to the floor, which was being starved to death. The authorities could not intervene because this was called "art" and thus fell under that country's freedom of expression laws. (I think they finally did anyway, under tremendous public pressure, but the example stands). How long before Christo or someone commits murder and claims First Amendment protection?

Then again, there was Andy Kaufman, whose entire life (and perhaps even death) was a piece of performance art, and I think somehow a valuable one. But there HAS TO BE A LINE!

I am rather amused by "there HAS TO BE A LINE!"
Why? Because someone could abuse it? Because you don't understand it? Because it doesn't match my couch? Because it isn't pretty? Because it makes me think? Because it doesn't make me think? Because we need to encapsulate it for dictionaries?
Who defines art? Who is given the privilege to define art? You? A government? A funder? A museum? The public? The artist?

You can either have art that shifts when you look at it, refuses to be pigeonholed, and changes as soon as you put your finger on it, remaining alive, vibrant and interesting.
Or you can have art that sits in one spot with a leash on it.
Which one sounds interesting?

Come on now! Nothing that contributes to the destruction of another living being should be tolerated. No matter the cause - any reasonable person feels this way. That out of the way...At the risk of sounding too artsy and pompous, I propose that what is great about this work of art shown here and just modern art in general is that it puts the power of art and expression within your grasp and not just something to be viewed in a frame that was painted by a commissioned artist paid by a king or queen. Art teaches invaluable lessons about compassion, love, hate, pain, beauty, ugliness, etc. and the more that art contributes to YOUR idea of what these words mean, the more you grow. Modern art requires participation. It is okay if that participation results in feelings of puzzlement, lack of understanding, or the conclusion that the artist is just nuts. YOU came to that conclusion and that is all that matters. I heard about this artist and this work and thought it sounded interesting but did not think much more on it; however, watching this video was kind of moving and beautiful as the artist engages with all these different people from all walks of life...Thank you so much for putting this on the blog!!!!!

Thanks for your thoughts WBEng...

In support of WBEng... Was at a seminar years back where we were asked just to look into the eyes of the person next to us. My 'partner', a stranger, commented that not even her husband looked into her eyes that deeply. (No reading into that, now!!) Oops. Just goes to show how often we go 'missing.'

Can either of you answer my question? If Christo kills someone, say, someone in your family, is it art? Ah, so you AGREE there has to be a line! Now our only point of disagreement is where to draw it. I would draw my line somewhere south of Andy Kaufman, and somewhere north of starving dogs.

I wasn't talking to the "line" debate, as I'm pretty unversed in all things art, but I will say I'm not into killing things for its sake. I've no idea how proponents justify that, or get away with it.

Gee - checking back I am grateful for the debate generated - especially as I found Marina's performance art worthy of introspection and consideration - discussion, whatever the view point is always good...that said, I have to comment. Jim: maybe you might want to review history - Christos' installation art has actually killed someone - in my state at least one passer-by was killed that I am aware of causing some local government to consider banning it...his umbrella thingy).

Thanks very much to everyone who chimed in on their positive personal experience, and, for those that are having a difficult time seeing the value maybe....sometimes, that's the whole point of art - showing how diverse reactions can be. However, regarding the analogies to hurtful/harmful aspects of human behavior being labeled as art and somehow worthy of comparison - please, let's be reality based here - there is nothing that calls for analogies that cross the line into abhorrent human behavior...I mean, I just didn't get that from what I saw...in fact, the opposite.

That said, I had a great conversation about this with a neighbor friend, elderly, and was fascinated to hear she attended something similar in performance art when she was living in New York City - in the 1940's....as we both are from diverging generations, my assumptions on origin and hers took different paths, but, I think we converged on it might just be a human condition thing that is being experimented with...I then had an interesting 1/2 hour trying to replicate the same thing with my same neighbor friend - turns out, that was the most intense and connected 30 minutes of my day so far...and yes, it was very cool. It may well have been I was open to a positive experience because my partner was kind, intelligent, caring, and facinating in her own right, but I truly had a great experience. Call it art, behavioral science, whatever you like, I think it's pretty cool.

Thank you, WBEng, I too appreciate the discourse. I'll admit it's a pet peeve of mine. I was somewhat exposed to the New York art scene in my younger days; my father co-owned an art gallery in SoHo. We'd go to openings and of course the ubiquitous wine and cheese parties, and meet the artists and their "hangers-on." What a bunch of phonies, with their pseudo-intellectual conversations; it seemed like everyone was trying to out-Warhol Warhol. You know how SNL, Frasier and other sitcoms occasionally lampoon the art crowd...well, it's really like that. But of course, that is irrelevant to the art itself. What I don't like about performance art, and other art forms where the artist doesn't seem to care whether or not you "get" it, as long as he or she is viewed as a "genius" by the in-crowd, is the feeling expressed by someone else here, "I could do that, and I'm not an artist!" I can throw a mop in a bucket of soapy water and call it "art". Would the MOMA pay ME for it? And what about that lady that sold elephant paintings that people pay upwards of $20,000 for? I don't mean paintings OF elephants, I mean paintings BY elephants! I guess if you got 20 large lying around...Anyway, I don't mean to disparage others' view of art. If it floats your boat, go for it.

PS - I was totally unaware of that about Christo. Different situation, of course, and I'm sure he felt terrible about it. (Didn't he?)

Hey Jim - I do know Christo and his wife were very distraught as I remember. An umbrella came loose in a wind gust and crushed a passer-by. For myself personally, I was never a fan of his installation art and the accident seemed to seal it for me at that time - it was not until his draping New York Central Park in that fabric stuff that I softened...the art itself didn't draw me, it was the way the city seemed to come together in some display of celebration after 9/11 - the entire city came out to see and experience it and it was their reaction that got me...just goes to show sometimes...

took the leap... ahhh.

Welcome to the club :)

EItS is one of my favorite bands to listen to. The music just always seems to stir up feelings of excitement and positivity...ok, maybe thats just me, idk. Hope you like them!

PS: If you do, they have like 6 albums so theres plenty more where that came from ;)

Got a favorite? This one is amazing, btw...