Encouraging associations across periods, geographies, and mediums, this section draws together diverse contents from post. View all Themes
It is very interesting to read the history of the Sogetsu Art Center in terms of its rise and fall during about a decade. Together with the post “Sites, Networks, and Individuals, Past and Present,” I could regard this place as a site for networking artists who wanted to share their ideas and energies for experimental works at those times. Seeing this aspect of network at SAC, some questions rise: How did SAC attract those artists? Why did many people want to reveal their enthusiasm for experimental arts at SAC?
As for the performance art that various artists investigated, I assume that SAC played a role to function as affective space, as well as to provide a place itself. In other words, artists doing their works as happenings could feel certain atmosphere and particular affection that might have the capability of invoking emotional contagion in relation to the bodily communication. If so, could we approach this affective energy in correlation with the collective political emotion before and, particularly, after the Anpo?
I was significantly impressed with the saying in the post, “Sogetsu itself began to change, but that means the connections between people also changed.” The post mentions that this change of SAC could be associated with the rise of other space such as Crosstalk/Intermedia, Orchestral Space, and EXPO ’70. I wonder why they chose other places even though SAC had given them an indispensable site for their works. In a sense, I am much interested in the reason for the fall of SAC, regarding the transformation of artistic practice in relation to the socio-political transition from the late 1960s to the early 1970s. Did they want to find a new place suitable for their artistic forms and practices stemmed from the late 1960s? Also, I wonder how their art works were reconstructed at other places and did interact with the atmosphere of the time.
It is very interesting to read the history of the Sogetsu Art Center in terms of its rise and fall during about a decade. Together with the post “Sites, Networks, and Individuals, Past and Present,” I could regard this place as a site for...
Iimura Takahiko’s idea on screening is interesting in terms of his investigating the specificity of screen or filmic environments, and expanding the possibilities of projection as a event. His saying that “the screening is the first occasion where film as expression unfolds” construes screening as a living event that generates filmic space-time. At a glance, this concept seems to be similar to that of traditional screenings at a theater; however, his idea is very different from that of static cinema apparatus because his idea of screening fundamentally raises a question about the conventional projection. Furthermore, Iimura explores the materialistic environments of the screenings. His screens are generated on the very surfaces of the 1960s' Japan.
Indeed, his performance makes surfaces of everyday variable screens on which the materials―body, ceiling, balloon, gymnasium, gallery, etc.―could find the way of communication with one another. Their fluid intersections might be understood “the copulation of media” by Iimura. His thought of intermedia might be stemmed from the society of the time in which people live together with (capitalistic) materials that were given their own corporeal lives by the era of conspicuous consumption. In this sense, I might say that his performance could be perceived as an allegory of the existence of the materials of the 1960s.
Iimura Takahiko’s idea on screening is interesting in terms of his investigating the specificity of screen or filmic environments, and expanding the possibilities of projection as a event. His saying that “the screening is the first occasion where...