“Well, Art is Art, isn’t it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know.” – Groucho Marx

“Art is art. Everything else is everything else.” – Ad Reinhardt

“He who possesses art and science has religion; he who does not possess them, needs religion.” – Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

It is a personal bias of mine to automatically distrust any individual proclaiming anything about themselves (e.g. the people who almost condescendingly declare that they are “artists” ergo their shit is gold and doesn’t stink) but then again, I never declared to possess an identity – sucks to be me.
Now, what exactly constitutes a “full-blown striptease” (of which she is biased and fails to describe later in the essay) to an individual with a Midwest Methodist upbringing? – either the reader’s mind goes too far with this presented image or not far enough, but if what Robert’s witnessed goes against Bowling Green, Ohio’s Code of Ordinances: Chapter 133: Offenses Against Morals: 06 Public Indecency (which it sounds like it did) then hell, call in Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

Yes, THEORETICALLY the habits of thought (and training) equip her for objective judgments regarding art, BUT…the Midwest Methodist upbringing came FIRST. Besides “objectivity” (in any form) is an illusion… Personally, I believe that Roberts has it wrong; that the problem ISN’T “how does one separate art from the sticky sociological questions” because “art” and “sticky sociological questions” are two separate things. Roberts again (I feel) makes a gross assumption that “it can be nearly impossible to separate art from morality” (possibly due to the limitations of the conveyance of this information, i.e. no timbre, no descriptions) because it all comes down to nature v. nurture and it seems as if Roberts wishes to switch her id with her superego. …and Susan Sontag also said: “It is not the position, but the disposition” as well as: “Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art.”

First of all, there are no “theories” about popular culture, only “sur-/realities”. By this I mean that there is a popular culture for everybody, and unless yours is shared by another (and vice-versa) it is alien to an unlearned 3rd party.

Kudos to Roberts for thinking empirically (re: her telling herself that she needed to experience the event before she could comment on it) even though all she apparently did was briefly observe it…
Now a conference flier to bill an event/performance as “transgressive” would initially turn some heads, both away and in a rubber-necking motion…after all it is loosely saying: “sin”, just polysyllabically and that in itself (non-comprehension) is enough to discourage the unlearned. However, for Roberts to say that her background is in visual art whereas it is her training that lies there is (almost) hypocritical. I have no doubt that she writes (as seen in this behemoth essay) and for her to dictate an adjective to her work is natural…after all, we do wish to seem that of which we are not. But she made the assumption that what she witnessed was something that it might not have necessarily been to begin with (that the performance would be political) was nothing more than a hope…and for lack of a better term, she “bought the ticket for that ride” and in doing so she passed the “point of no return”.

Roberts recreates the scenario that she witnessed for the reader through adjectives that of which she witnessed and are therefore polluted for the reader via their literal definition. Roberts almost makes it seem that not only was witnessing the performance painful (visually) but that it was (physically) painful for both the performer and viewer alike. Her description of the performance is biased and when she describes the interaction betwixt her [Roberts] and her friend she makes it sound as if she complacent with what she was witnessing and devoid of ANY emotion whatsoever.

Ultimately she [Roberts companion] gave no reason for her departure, but the performance was not over – was she either attempting not to lose face with her [Roberts], thinking out of her own behalf, internally arguing her own morals and ethics, or just ([insert derogatory adjective here])? If one were as “transfixed” and “fascinated” as Roberts was, they would STAY, and they did…not necessarily out of respect, but out of intrigue. When Alfred Hitchcock changed the way people go to the cinema, people began showing up on; when the film of Kennedy’s assassination was televised, people feared blinking for then they might miss something; when there was ever the possibility of an encore, people stayed later than the duration of the show. The same principles apply to what Roberts witnessed – she makes it sound as if she showed up late, blinked, and left long before the curtain dropped.

The differentiation between a performance and a show is not necessarily a “subtle” one as much as it is a “tactful” one – ANYBODY shows up for a “show” however, only those “in the know” are in attendance for a “performance”. And yes, not everyone would be receptive to what they were watching whether it be a difference of ethics, morals, or sheer lifestyle choice(s), nevertheless they all received what they were seeing, how they translated it was, and is, a different story.

Roberts here deviates from her description of the stripper via the term “putting on her Ritz”, i.e. differentiating betwixt a risqué performer, a burlesque dancer, an exotic dancer, and a stripper. From there the difference between “Realities vs. Illusion” became more than apparent to Roberts. After that, she seems to have “sobered up” (for lack of a better term) in this paragraph…as if she had been witnessing the performance (spectacle?) through “beer goggles”, i.e. the lights have been turned on in the club and you actually see your surrounding for what they really are for the first time. Never the less, she seems taken aback with the stripper’s approach and usage of the adjective version of the verb “transgress” – almost as if she [Roberts] fully bought-in/believed a truth that strippers are generally uneducated people. Almost as if the woman dancing was not the HIV-positive individual at the reception…one finds it difficult to imagine how biased Roberts could have become had she pried even further to find out as to how the woman contracted HIV – for as irrelevant as it sounds, as relevant it is to Roberts’ (supposed) objectivity.

Due to the fact that Roberts had witnessed what she saw under the guise of “performance” as opposed to that of a “show”, her sense experience was somewhat polluted…almost as if she had to accept what she saw for any of it’s supposed artistic merit. Other than that, reading about Roberts’ unease regarding the woman’s candid discussion was rather difficult for me, and I believe it was due to knowledge that we all cope with illness/problems in our OWN way – that it is natural for one to protect themselves and not disclose such sensitive information, e.g. shame, that we wish not to be seen in events that in which we failed, et cetera. …As if Roberts made no effort to comprehend/relate to how this woman was dealing with the topic of discussion.

Why are we always more than ready to flog and ostracize an individual’s act of catharsis and how they deal with something? Is it solely because we do not agree with either them or what they may be doing? Or is it just because a naturally inherent trait in the human species is that of hypocrisy?
And here it is…“victim art” – oh how I (and you) wish to record me baptizing myself in a deep-fat fryer and spackling the walls with my brain-matter via a 12-gauge shotgun and have it called “performance art”…it still would not make it any good.

(From this point my review is mainly touch-and-go; after all, everything has a breaking point…)

Upon learning that Roberts has lived much of her adult life with a disfiguring chronic disease, our opinion about her changes somewhat as does how we read her essay, nevertheless we will ultimately form our own opinions…or so we think. Roberts (like any other human stricken with an illness [i.e. ALL of us]) writes about what she knows, and attempts to write almost as unbiased and objectively as possible – informative as opposed to persuasive. She says that she struggles with the issue of disclosure whereas I believe that she (albeit unknowingly) struggles with the issue of closure – what you tell someone is nothing compared to the resolution reached. Roberts touches on a human condition/dilemma: that the viewer/observer/reader will feel pity for the performer/actor/writer via ([properly] nurtured) natural emotion…it is almost a catch-22. An inevitable response to the mere utterance of the word “victim” is that of pity.

It is like trying to un-/see/hear/experience/feel something that you have already seen/heard/experienced/felt – it cannot be done.

But did it [Jones’ “art”] really distort and transmogrify their dialogues? We were not there ergo we have no real basis of knowledge for anything regarding Still/Here, just an offended individual’s opinion.
Yes, the medium mediates…it consumes its observer/viewer in their entirety if either party is to be so lucky.

Yes, we CAN escape this, “the pathos, and the tragic implications, of the wounded body”, the only thing that one needs to do is to have a (healthy?) empirical knowledge, or (for lack of a better term) have done “it” before they ever viewed “it”; i.e. a performance containing self-mutilation is inherently different when viewed by a “cutter” – if you’ve done it before, then you’re less (a/e)-ffected by the act/performance.

Yes, the audience was bound to draw a connection between the stripper and her illness, i.e. that her choice of vocation led her to the contraction of the disease, but that isn’t the dilemma. The main problem is that her contraction of the illness was not dependent on her vocation, but rather on the choices she made; free-will, it’s like butterfly wings – once touched they never get off the ground.
Would the conference been any more different had it been an HIV-positive burlesque performer and not a “stripper”?

Moral and ethical problems are aesthetic ones, just not of the “visual” nature to which we primarily associate aesthetics. Exploitation and voyeurism are naturally inherent in humans…again, butterfly wings.
“Suffering” is a hallmark of living, a by-product that of which is art.

Now this is why I don’t read ads or reviews. I agree with Franz Kafka with his quote about ads: “I do not read advertisements – I would spend all my time wanting things”, and as far as reviews go…well, for one thing, I despise people in groups unless I am drugged up, liquored up, and singled out. Other than that, I wish NOT to have formed ANY idea (i.e. someone else’s opinion) about what I am quite possibly getting myself into. If I were to not approach it with child-like awe, I would possibly run the risk of severe disappointment, ergo being unable to critique/review it in any way/shape/form whether it is positive or negative. Yes, there are some things that I am naturally biased to, BUT, these things are NOT alien to me therefore a (hopefully/possibly) unbiased/unpolluted conclusion can be reached.

“Pain and disease” are what simultaneously separates and connects us with others – our pain is our own as is our disease, however THE pain is shared and THE disease possesses a prejudice (albeit infrequently e.g. sickle-cell anemia).

Initially, I believe the act of the striptease was created to titillate its audience but not vis-à-vis the empowerment it gives its performer – there (originally) was no “outcast narrative” as Roberts puts it such a narrative came from its evolution. But after Roberts makes that assumption she goes further to falsely assume that in some way all strippers have HIV, the separation of the participants (the audience) from the act, the suffering becomes suspect, and “political irony” gets lost. Now here, I have come to many a “fork in the road” (as it were)… There is inevitably a separation of “audience and act” because of the lack of comprehension for the most part; that we can never experience something from someone else’s (1st person) point-of-view, let alone the stipulations and stigmas of this performance and all that it curtails. For Roberts to say that: “the suffering becomes suspect” is confusing due to the context in which she is referring to said suffering – that during the reception the woman who was performing was acting candidly can be deduced to nothing more that a defense mechanism, but I am more than positive that had that woman been asked something that were verboten, her attitude would have changed indefinitely. And for Roberts to declare that “political irony gets lost” says that it was even there to begin with, and having not been there, I can neither confirm nor deny that there was even politically ironic content to begin with. If anything it was not so much “political” but rather “sociological” or even “socio-political” – the idea of the HIV-positive stripper is more paradoxical than political, e.g. the object of lustful desire that if one were to commit the act of coitus they would die. And to say that it was a “Survival Workshop” indicates that it was something to instruct others of something that is (naturally) inherent in humans: that one will do what one must in order to survive, and for that the hypocritically frivolous religious contradict an element in their “good book” that of which they hide behind: Matthew 7:1…judge not lest you yourself be judged.

How long we experience said “performances” and how we interact with those surrounding us at the performance’s receptions are dependent factors on shaping what we believe the art to be after their act has been committed. Ultimately (and ironically), we will believe what we want to believe, whether it be shaped by another or not.

I will agree with Roberts’ false sense experience that “stripping is a risky way to make a living.” But in Bowling Green, she did not just have the [emotional] protection of “art” as much as she had [physical] protection by way of her surrounding for there is a difference between scholarly gentlemen and liquored up frat boys …and it’s about seven shots of Jagermeister.

Roberts stated that “suffering has been on of art’s primary coda” yet she makes it sound as if it is art’s modus operandi and that there is a “safe” way in which one can view the truths of human existence. From here, Roberts makes a common allegorical error with introducing Beckett’s End Game, assuming that her reader has a knowledge of it is one thing, however Roberts recovers herself just well enough with her description. However, from that point I feel that the [mockingly] “popular culture theorist” within her consumes her (supposed) objectivity. There’s a connective ether formed between the characters in a play/movie/et cetera and its viewers. For the duration of the event, the audience (as individual, sentient entities) ceases to exist and they become the characters they are witnessing, likewise when the curtain drops, the person they become ceases to exist. We are moved by these acts because of our vicarious nature (amongst other things) – we can imagine ourselves in these positions, we have been in these situations.
The medical background I have accumulated and constant ab-/use of general psychology disagree with Roberts here to no extent. Illness and its sufferings are NOT imprinted on our very genes – they are learned; we do not know how to emote, we learn how to emote and sub-/consciously manipulate it from that point on. Yes, “we all know what it is to suffer” but we will never know what it is truly like to witness another suffer, BUT…our biology doesn’t so much rely on our knowing suffering as much as our (individual) mentalities and ontologies do. True, art cannot tell us anything new about “specific” bodies in pain, BUT by saying that it brings to us experience that is uncontaminated by the real is a fallacy for neither NO one individual’s reality is shared by another nor known by another.

Maybe it was not the message itself that came through garbled but the manner in which it was conveyed or the translation that of which it underwent.

“Words are all we have.” – Samuel Beckett

“As soon as we start putting our thoughts into words and sentences everything gets distorted, language is just no damn good – I use it because I have to, but I don’t put any trust in it. We never understand each other.” – Marcel Duchamp

The only measuring stick for another’s suffering that of which we possess is our own, and from that moment (the subconscious comparison) we run the risk of being biased

And this is why I do not talk about “art” with fine arts majors or those that call themselves “artists” while in my presence. “Art” asks us to do nothing, for one thing it is physically impossible, but outside of the obvious ramifications of an inanimate object or an act to ask us to do anything greater than what we demand of ourselves is impossible – or to quote Theodor Adorno: “Art remains loyal to humankind uniquely through its inhumanity in regard to it.” From her conclusion, it almost seems as if Roberts wants to rid the (art) world of anything that challenges a psyche or can be condemned as “dangerous”, replacing it with the works of Bob Timberlake and Thomas Kinkade – overly self-absorbed, masturbatory works for mass consumption of the hive-mind aesthetic.

If we accept “the suffering subject as a legitimate sacrifice” then we accept life, not “live on the ashes of art” as Roberts so eloquently puts it. To live on its ashes then there would need to be a complete hindrance put on self-expression, growing, et cetera – there in which an “all-encompassing” conformity would be accepted and “the individual” would be non-existent.

In conclusion, I find Roberts’ essay not only a difficult read (because of where she stands) but a failure to bring important issues into the limelight as objectively as possible. There was neither space in which the reader could contemplate the subject(s)/dilemma(s) at hand by themselves nor was there any breathing room in which I felt that I did not have to take a defensive position. Roberts unceremoniously brought important concepts and ideas to the table with no regard whatsoever to the delicacy of such matters. Outside of the few random typos and grammatical errors (hey, no one is perfect), Roberts essay was just descriptive enough in some places to satiate the sensationalist within, yet deprived and pallid enough (descriptively, textually, and intellectually) in others into turn the reader away asking nothing of themselves. Strangely enough, I find myself wondering if “good art” and “good artists” is what our society truly lacks, when in fact what we truly destitute of could be “good critics.”