7th December- Pink and Quite Clean- Performance and review

7th December-

NUA Pink and Quite Clean Performance 

Prancing around with tights on your head;

A modern rebellious act?

By Laura Potts

Pink and Quite Clean took place within NUA on 7th December. This performance piece was a collaboration between sculptural work and performance. Performance art began to develop in the 1950's with a frustration at the prevailing abstract expressionism. Since then the medium has been used to embody a number of topics and is often used by artists such as Pyotr Pavlensky to stand against oppressive social injustices. The artist becomes the artwork and an exchange is facilitated with the audience, as Bourriaud outlined in 1998.

Much like performance and sculptural artists that have gone before them, the artists within Pink and quite clean were trying to convey a message. This being done through the personal and engaging medium of expressive movement and through physical installation work. The sculptural work within the space was also conveying a message. I think my first criticism would be that these two aspects should have been allowed to stand in their own right. The plaque on the wall concerned a number of messages; the 'core focus'  being on mental health and feminist theory. The latter, slightly confused explanation of the 'room' concerned juvenile fears and feelings of both comfort and discomfort . If the sculptural work and the performance boasted their own plaque style explanations then the two aspects of the collaboration would be clearer. Through common words and themes the viewer can tie in how these combine to compliment one another, as the performance exemplified. This would have allowed both sides of the collaboration to discuss their chosen theme without confusion or overlap of the aims of the work.

The performance however had the ability to fully embody a number of those themes simultaneously. Although the 'core focus' was claimed to be feminist theory and mental health, the performed work seemed more to shadow that of childhood trauma and adolescent troubles. This coincided with the sculptural work very well and as a viewer, the juxtaposition between safety and misplaced comfort emerged.  The well rehearsed work that  took place was not only well choreographed but very impressively timed to the thought out musical accompaniment. Although the tasteless use of tights was a mockery of identity and used as a mask of the monsters; dragging a child from being innocent to fully oppressed by preconceived societal concepts. To other viewers they may have been uncomfortably gender specific and the level of meaning in each aspect of the work overloaded the piece slightly.

There was a strong narrative within the work that echoed themes of childhood stories and allowed the viewer to enter into a slight comfort at the chronological course of the work. The performance echoed that of a theatrical nature. This could possibly aid people in entering into the relationship between art and perfomance. However, it is difficult if the work is to then be taken seriously as a non fictional exemplification of social issues. Due to the strong narrative and theatrical sense, the viewer may not apply the work in an analytical position and more in that of entertainment. The saving features that removes the work from theatrical sphere is the ambiguous sculpture and the audience participation. The juvenile protagonist invited a few members of the audience into the sculptural structure. and to play among the performers. This was effective audience engagement and was used to end the piece. However, there was a level of unprofessionalism as there was no clear end to the work nor an invitation for more audience members to enter into the engagement. This minor aspect is less commentary on the artistic value of the work than logistics of experience and practice.

This energetic work was prominently experimental with the line between sculpture and performance being blurred into a pink voluptuous shape. It has left me curious as to how the artists will bring this into the public sphere. Creating art that is experimental and reflects experiences is a luxurious and privileged position to be in within today’s world. Art is a vital tool in cultural exchange, therefore there are ethical implications when producing work with themes that are very psychologically engaged and differ so broadly across people. This work struck me as a performance of individual experience and less of a possible tool for social change. After speaking to Oliver Saunders (NUA performance society), he mentioned that the work is intended for a public space. Therefore I could not help but wonder how this would sit in a less institutional context. Would the work merely document the themes being acted out or would it facilitate a social discussion and discourse toward change of attitudes and awareness?