Performance re-described.

I've been thinking of the performance (and with Son in mind) in terms of an extended art piece, wondering how the piece will exist after the initial performance(s). This seems to force considerations of documentation, interpretation and re-presentation of the piece. I guess performance is different to photography, video, sculpture and painting because it of its temporariness and because of its power to engage all the senses (as Jon mentioned).

I think another significant difference is that in the other disciplines you are left with a physical object that more or less remains the same as time passes, allowing for the piece to be referred to physically and exhibited in galleries etc… With performance what you're left with is your memory and impression of the event which I think is really interesting, this is where the art work continues to reside, in the heads of the audience.

Performance is riddled with problems of re-presentation and longevity but maybe that's partly because we try to arrest something (physical) that is not meant to be arrested. However, maybe we could give the performance longevity by accepting its physical temporariness and engaging with the audience's memory of the performance where the work does continue to live. By exploring these ideas in terms of retelling and re-describing, the performance may continue to hold currency through the language of performance and memory. There would not be any notable physical art piece (such as the human House) but rather a perpetual performance of re-describing that puts the emphasis on the memory of an individual and their interpretation of the original work.