Performance Art or Health Threat? SAIC Student's Performance Banned from 4-D Extravaganza By Lamaretta Simmons
A student performance art piece concerned administrative authorities
to such a degree that the piece was denied entry into the 2001 4-D
Extravaganza held December 8.
SAIC first-year student Kerry Weber was forced by the administration to
withdraw his piece Consequences of Capitalism from the Extravaganza
because it was deemed harmful. Paul Coffey, Undergraduate Administrative
Director, said that Weber performing live was a health risk because the
body piercing would create open wounds and blood, possibly endangering
those present at the public event. Secondly, the administration felt
that the performance was detrimental to Weber's health, and that
allowing the piece to be viewed, even on video, was an endorsement of
Weber inflicting harm upon himself. "This is a legitimate performance
and I think it has some artistic merit, and he could perform this
anywhere that would want to support this kind of act. Here at the
school, because of health and safety, we could not support this act,"
Coffey said. Consequences of Capitalism was voted into the Extravaganza
by Weber's 4-D class, taught last fall by Eleftheria Lialios, in which
Weber initially performed the piece. The performance, which Weber
insists is about the pain capitalism causes, involves Weber being
pierced up to 15 times by an experienced piercer, also a SAIC student,
in front of a live audience, while a large projection screen played
looped clips of popular commercials. At the onset of the piece,
performed for his class on December 7, each participant was told to grab
one of 15 five-dollar bills laid out by Weber's piercer. Each piercing,
said Weber, represented each time capitalism hurt him, and he was
pierced once for each five-dollar bill a person took. During the
performance, which was videotaped, Weber was only pierced 13 times, as
two students gave back their money, thus reducing his suffering and pain
by two - the idea being that those who kept the money would only
continue the vicious cycle of capitalism. Lialios, Associate Adjunct
Professor in the First-Year Program, responded to F's request for a
statement regarding Weber's performance and the issues inherent therein,
writing that: "Students selected his piece for the Extravaganza (as I
have allowed them to since 1988) because they thought that it had
artistic merit. Panic was not present in the class at any point. We did
not feel that he was endangering his life while being pierced. ..."
"This performance was an expression of Kerry's response to the politics
of consumerism, and a metaphorical reaction created within youth culture
in the form of body piercing. Kerry did not inform me of his performance
in class. And, we were only allowed to enter the classroom after his
stage was set. He had a professional tattoo artist, a current student,
pierce him with gloves and alcohol swabs several times. The performance
was very controlled and theatrical in its progress. Afterwards, he
smiled and sat through a critique from his peers. At the time of the
performance, we did not think he was violating social codes, or that it
constituted gratuitous self-destruction. "While body piercing has been a
part of human culture for thousands of years, it is apparently only
recently that artists are using their body in this manner as a political
form. The idea of a body piercing had never been explored by any other
student in my classes, and I have been teaching this class since 1988.
Because of the fact that body piercing and tattooing have become such a
big part of youth culture, I imagine this piece was waiting to happen
sometime soon. It happened in my class, under conditions that were not
considered to be dangerous," Lialios wrote. Weber and his performance
became the focus of attention after a hall director in the 162 N. State
Building, where Weber resides, became concerned about scars and other
markings on Weber's forearm. According to Weber, the hall director saw
his forearm, which showed healing cuts from a separate performance piece
in which he cuts his arm over a sink filled with water. Weber said he
told the hall director that the cuts were a part of his performance, but
the hall director reported her observation to Debbie Martin, Assistant
Dean of Student Affairs, who then suggested that Weber meet with a
member of health services and the hall director. Weber told F that the
health services staff member and the hall director, neither of whom saw
Weber's performance, met with him after his 4-D class on December 7. At
that time Weber said he was given antiseptic and a pamphlet on body
piercing, and he spoke about his background and childhood. Weber said
that during the meeting he insisted that his actions were not a result
of him having any type of mental illness, nor were they an attempt on
his part to inflict harm upon himself. Linda Pas, director of Health
Services, was unavailable for comment. Martin, citing confidentiality,
declined to speak about the specifics of Weber's case, but acknowledged
that other services were called upon and a discussion with the
administration was entered into about the Weber situation. "Our concern
is first and foremost for the safety of the individual and out of care
for them. Not only is it school policy but I think anytime you [are]
concerned about somebody's safety it's a humanistic response to try to
work with that individual," Martin said. Acts of self-mutilation, while
not specifically mentioned in the residence hall or student handbooks,
are often seen as signs of mental or emotional instability. Martin said
that residence hall staff should be aware of any signs that students may
be a danger to themselves. "If a student were [for instance] cutting
themselves in the residence halls we would be concerned about that ...
that would fall under the realm of causing harm to themselves. ... We
would be concerned with their physical and emotional safety and we would
try to work with them to see what we could do to prevent that from
happening," Martin said. School officials were not clear about when the
various members of the administration were notified of the situation. It
is unclear exactly when the hall director first notified Debbie Martin
and when the remainder of the administration was notified. However, all
agree that they were working within a short time span. Felice Dublon,
Dean of Students, noted that time played a key role in the
decision-making process of the administration. "Along the lines of
health and safety, this is really where I was coming from. If a student
is at risk of hurting themselves or others that is usually when I get a
phone call, and that is what we were trying to ascertain. What made it
difficult was that it was happening over the weekend and happening so
quickly," Dublon said. The hall director's observation occurred on what
Martin thought was the Thursday of the week of the Extravaganza, leaving
little time for Weber's performance to be seen and discussed by the
administration. Coffey called Weber on the morning of the performance,
Saturday, to discuss concerns. The time factor prevented the
decision-making members of the administration (with the exception of
Coffey, who saw the video), from viewing Weber's performance before the
determination was made to withdraw it, something that Lialios thinks
could have possibly assuaged some concerns. "I am a little concerned,"
Lialios wrote, "by the fact that none of those in a position to decide
whether the piece would be included in the Extravaganza actually saw the
work in its live form, rather than a video, void of theatrical energy,
and misrepresenting the nature of the work. I understand that students
in the class did try to intercede and convey their sense that Kerry was
not actually harming himself to the administration. None of us thought
that this piece was other than a piece about consumerism, conveyed
through the act of piercing. I feel that if others had seen this piece
in person they would have drawn similar conclusions." A female student
from Weber's 4-D class, who spoke under the condition of anonymity,
said: "Although I cannot argue with the administration's health/safety
concerns about Kerry's work being performed live, I cannot understand
why they would not allow a video documentation of Kerry's work to be
viewed [at] SAIC. ... The piercing was conducted responsibly ... by a
student who, I understand, is experienced with piercing. I trust that
Kerry's intention was not to permanently hurt himself, but to convey his
message through actions that he felt would most strongly capture the
issues of consequence, pain, disgust, discomfort, and victimization."
Coffey said, "This [wasn't] going to be done in the intimacy and privacy
of a classroom or a bedroom; This was going to happen at a public event,
at an event where we didn't know who was coming and there was no way
that we could speculate on the reactions to this." Both Weber and Coffey
agree that the situation became contentious when Weber refused to alter
his piece so as to omit the actual piercing. According to Weber,
"[Coffey] wanted the performance to be modified so there would not be
any body piercing in it. But I felt that it couldn't be changed because
[the piercing] is a key element." Dublon was unable to view the video.
Coffey, who did view the video, said, "We needed to find some way where
the piercing was not actual, so I tried to talk about how to simulate
this, how can we go about this in a different way and at that point it
became a little more contentious. He wasn't willing to compromise the
performance by simulation," said Coffey, "He felt we were censoring
him." Coffey said that after viewing the tape he felt even more strongly
that Weber was inflicting harm upon himself. Coffey said that the
administration told Weber he could still participate in the Extravaganza
if he adjusted his performance or chose an entirely different piece.
Weber opted out. The impact of the administration's decision on Weber
manifested itself in an impulsive protest by Weber who, along with
friends, protested at the Extravaganza. During the show's intermission,
Weber appeared with a couple of friends, carrying a bullhorn and copies
of two well-known controversial pieces of SAIC student artwork (Dred
Scott's "What's the Proper Way to Display an American Flag?" and David
Nelson's "Mirth and Girth"). Weber posted the two pieces, along with
stills of his video and then proceeded to spray paint BANNED BY SAIC on
the main wall of the exhibition space. During the protest Weber was
tackled to the floor by an unidentified staff member who, according to
Coffey, has been spoken to about his behavior. The spray paint
compromised the work of students who were projecting images onto the
wall. The overall "protest" was not received well among students or
faculty who spoke to F. Lialios wrote: "I wish he would have approached
me in an attempt to find a more civil and effectual way of protesting. I
think that he considered himself a victim of hypocrisy and was
indignantly unwilling to consider other ways of coping with this
conclusion. I do have faith that Kerry's methods of communication and
expression will evolve toward a mature dialogue." Monashee Frantz, a
senior studying performance art at SAIC, said that she was disappointed
by both the way that the administration handled it and the way that
Kerry lashed out at the performance. "I don't think anything about his
work is problematic. The only thing that I think is a problem is the way
he dealt with it," said Frantz, adding that she didn't understand why
this piece would be censored because many artists use self-mutilation or
blood in their artwork. Weber has since stated that he has mixed
feelings about the way he protested his disagreement with the
administration and admits that his behavior at the 4-D Extravaganza was
a spur of the moment act. However some, such as art history
undergraduate Trev Kelderman, are unimpressed by performance art such as
Weber's. "I respect his right as an artist to perform this type of art,
but personally, I think this type of art is bullshit. I feel it is
opportunistic, egocentric, and elementary. But to each their own,"
Kelderman said. In an effort to explain why the administration viewed
Weber's performance as harmful, Dublon said, "Primarily this is harmful
to him. We had heard that his hands were being tied, he was gagged and
so on. Let's say he changed his mind and was in such pain or trauma,
we're not equipped to deal with it. Whenever blood is drawn there is a
health and safety risk, to not just the individual, but to anybody
around them who might suddenly get something sprayed on them." Weber
said that during the hour-long conversation with Coffey he explained the
precautions he and the piercer were taking to ensure safety. According
to Weber, they worked out a secret safety word if at any time Weber was
in too much pain or unsafe, all the materials used were sterile and
hygienic, and that the piercer was the only person who would come into
immediate contact with Weber's body. Both Dublon and Coffey insist that
the incident involving Weber is a case in specifics and that it is not
the administration's position that they should be censoring student art.
They both stated that the issues here were concerns with Weber's
well-being, as well as public health. Ethan Roeder, co-president of
Student Government, in an email statement to F, wrote: "It is absurd to
propose that no restrictions should be placed upon the form in which
creative expression takes place at an art school. [It is equally absurd]
to say that one entire genre of art-making practice (such as
self-mutilation) should be banned. Everything, I feel, must be addressed
on a case-by-case basis. If a law is being broken or if the safety of
unwilling participants is being compromised I will be the first person
to say SAIC should neither support this nor even allow this to happen
within its walls. However, are we to relegate ourselves to the faraway
corners of hotel art by restricting, out of form, controversial and
challenging art? That's not a hypothetical question. The answer is no."
The issue for Weber boils down to his right as a student to perform and
produce the type of art, however controversial, of his choosing. Weber
feels that the administration sees his performance only for the shock
value of the piercing, rather than the deeper artistic vision and
message that he intends. At the same time the administration, acting
with the school's interests in mind, has an obligation to protect its
students and consider the viewing community. The incident further calls
into question what exactly are the boundaries of student art. At an
institution that prides itself on art making, an issue as potent as this
one begs for discussion.
| 
