Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:43:31.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Welcome to This Situation: Tino Sehgal's Impersonal Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2015

Toni Pape ,
Noémie Solomon  and
Alanna Thain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What of dance is welcomed in the museum, and what remains on the outside? Artist Tino Seghal's “constructed situations” redirect this question, reworking relations of inside and outside, participant and observer, subject and object through a collective bodily attending to the situation itself. This article explores the conspiratorial techniques activated by This Situation (2007) to consider how dance moves in and with the museum. These techniques, which are derived from or affiliated with those of performance (the intricate negotiation of bodies, movement, and time in relation), include repetition, remixing, distributed movement, conspiratorial breathing, the compliment, disjunctions between words and gestures, and more as part of the work's ecology of practices. As interpreters of the piece in Montréal (and, as such, embodied archivists), the three authors take up key issues such as tensions between ephemerality and preservation, dance's anarchival propensity, and the contagious corporeal techniques of the piece that pass between interpreters and visitors, human and object materialities, and which traverse heterochronicities of the event and its resonances. We propose that what is specific to Sehgal's work within the museum is a holding of movements and relations as a way of persistently making and unmaking its forms, contents, and relations—as a way of making art contemporary, so to speak, via dance's propensity to always begin again. This commitment to re-beginning is what we term Sehgal's impersonal ethics: how This Situation (re)activates and relies on the generation of intensive but ambiguous embodiments.

Keywords

Body as archivecarechoreographyecology of practicesethicsFélix Guattarimuseumparticipatory artremixTino Sehgal.
Type
Articles
Information
Dance Research Journal , Volume 46 , Issue 3: Dance in the Museum , December 2014 , pp. 89 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © Congress on Research in Dance 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Bishop, Claire. 2005. “No Pictures, Please.” Artforum 43(9): 215–217.Google Scholar
Bishop, Claire. 2012. Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Chun, Wendy. 2008. “The Enduring Ephemeral, or the Future Is a Memory.” Critical Inquiry 35(1): 148–171.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles. 1989. Cinema 2: The Time Image (1986). Translated by Tomlinson, Hugh and Galeta, Robert. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles. 1992. “Ethology: Spinoza and Us.” In Incorporations, edited by Crary, Jonathan and Kwinter, Sanford, 628–633. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1994. “Des espaces autres” (1967). In Dits et Écrits, Tome IV, 754–755.Google Scholar
Franko, Mark. 2013. “Boris Charmatz at MoMA.” http://www.jampole.com/OpEdgy/?p=231.Google Scholar
Fuller, Matthew. 2005. Media Ecologies: Materialist Energies in Art and Technoculture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, Tim. 2005. “Tino Sehgal: An Interview.” Artforum International (May): 218–219.Google Scholar
Guattari, Félix. 1995a. “On Machines.” Journal of Philosophy and Visual Arts (6): 8–12.Google Scholar
Guattari, Félix. 1995b. Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm (1992). Translated by Bains, Paul and Pefanis, Julian. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Lepecki, André. 2010. “The Body as Archive: Will to Re-Enact and the Afterlives of Dances.” Dance Research Journal 42(2): 28–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, David. 2006. “Bad Art and Objecthood.” ART US 15(13): 22–25.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jessica and Wood, Catherine et al. 2007. “It's All True.” Tate Etc. (11): 71–74.Google Scholar
Schneider, Rebecca. 2011. Performing Remains: Art and War in Times of Theatrical Reenactment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Roberta. 2007. “Art in Review: Tino Sehgal—This Situation.” The New York Times. December 14. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/arts/design/14gall.html.Google Scholar
Solomon, Noémie, ed. 2014. DANSE: An Anthology. Dijon, France: Les presses du réel.Google Scholar
Stengers, Isabelle. 2010. Cosmopolitics. Vol. 1. Translated by Bononno, Robert. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Thain, Alanna. 2010. “Anarchival Cinemas.” Inflexions 4. Special Issue on Transversal Fields of Media. Edited by Christoph Brunner and Troy Rhodes. http://www.senselab.ca/inflexions/volume_4/n4_thainhtml.html.Google Scholar
Umathum, Sandra. 2009. “Given the Tino Sehgal Case: How to Save the Future of a Work of Art that Materializes Only Temporality.” Theatre Research International 34(2): 194–199.Google Scholar
Umathum, Sandra. 2011. Kunst als Aufführungserfahrung: Zum Diskurs intersubjektiver Situationen in der zeitgenössischen Ausstellungskunst. Felix Gonzalez-Torres, Erwin Wurm und Tino Sehgal. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.Google Scholar