Burden speaks frankly about his motivations (though not necessarily about his intent) for making piece came out of a long-standing desire to be on television.The more I thought about it, the simplest way seemed to be to purchase a commercial advertising slot.
Burden speaks frankly about his motivations (though not necessarily about his intent) for making piece came out of a long-standing desire to be on television.The more I thought about it, the simplest way seemed to be to purchase a commercial advertising slot.The first of these— are exclusively text—bold letters spelling out “CHRIS BURDEN” against a black background, then handwritten script reading “THROUGH THE NIGHT SOFTLY” against a gray field.Tags: Gwic Thesis PrizeHomework Help Algebra 2Value Catholic Education EssayPersuasion Essay TopicsHotels Business PlanAbortion Research Papers IntroductionLouis Riel Hero Or Traitor EssayThesis 2 Header SizeArmy Assignment Satisfaction Key
My biggest problem was convincing the station that I was worth bothering with, that I was a legitimate artist.
(1971), Burden’s performances had begun to attract audiences expecting something dangerous or spectacular–a less than optimal climate in which to do something unexpected.
In his assault on the medium , the former adman Jerry Mander noted that by the beginning of the 1970s, television had become “the main transmitter of reality,” and that individuals cognizant of this—from Richard Nixon to the Symbionese Liberation Army to corporate advertisers—expertly manipulated it for political and capital gain.
Sensing the insidious corporate stronghold on the medium, but also its communicative and activist potential, Burden and other artists in the 1970s went beyond critiquing television; they began using it as a medium for their work.
A Warhol silkscreen may defamiliarize a familiar image, but its relationship with the viewer remains a consumptive one—like the television, it is there to be gazed at.
On the contrary, Burden’s work in the 1970s confronted, rather than emulated, the consumerist ethos that found its highest (or perhaps just its most convenient) expression in the televisual experience. Burden—then living in Venice Beach—was concurrently making live performance work that deployed television monitors as critical signifiers of voyeurism. " width="599" height="400" align="middle" srcset="/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/01_599w, /wp-content/uploads/2016/08/01_tv-350x234350w, /wp-content/uploads/2016/08/01_tv-500x334500w" sizes="(max-width: 599px) 100vw, 599px" /, expanding meaningfully beyond the descriptive synopses Burden himself provides for most of his individual works, has been curiously rare.His own camera crew’s tape of the performance , 1972. " width="600" height="408" align="middle" srcset="/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/02_600w, /wp-content/uploads/2016/08/02_tv-350x238350w, /wp-content/uploads/2016/08/02_tv-500x340500w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" / is a declaration of agency.Burden got to do a performance live on TV after all, and he didn’t adjust it to fit a homogenizing TV frame. Burden expounded on television art during the next five years with four commercials—almost masquerades of advertisements—made for broadcast on television.Burden used TV sets in performances as decoys, implicit endorsements of passive voyeurism; an audience would find itself alienated from a dangerous situation or an endangered performer by viewing these things through the isolating remove of the screen.When his commercials were aired within a block of other “real” ads, they, per Burden, “Stuck out like a sore thumb … Courtesy of the artist and Gagosian Gallery, © Chris Burden.This link between his use of the television set as an object or prop in performances like and his works that actually took place on television is crucial to parsing why arguably the foremost performance artist of his generation began to resituate a live performance practice to a medium that seems antithetical to live art.Assuming from the outset that Burden’s TV work was acutely informed by the manipulative mechanics of mainstream television, he can to some extent be situated within a circle of artists, collectives, and media critics in the 1970s who aimed at revealing the monster behind the seemingly benign screen.Some collectives advocated for public access to technology that could transform television consumers into producers (these groups included Videofreex, People’s Video Theater, and the Raindance Corporation), while several individual artists attempted to deconstruct television’s psychological grip on viewers by appropriating both its frame and its product.