Is Natacha Stolz piece "Interior Semiotics" 40 years too late?

It seems Natacha Stolz "Tacha" art piece entitled "Interior Semiotics" is 40 years too late. It seems to be based within the discourse of early performance art. Performance art seems to be an extension from conceptual art, all which was a reaction to art as object. Here we see Natacha Stolz perform a work akin to many early performance artists work, but does not seem to imply any inherent irony. Natacha Stolz is stuck in a post-modern era in which deconstruction of form, words and ideas was in the majority of discussion.

Everything is **** and meaningless? Then stop pitying yourself Natacha, and build something from that ****. Your work is cliche.

4 Answers

  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Pissing on the floor is always relavent.

    Source(s): Piss is fact.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    Natacha Stolz

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Yes, 40 or even 90 years too late, because as recently as 40 years ago, violating convention in art could itself be considered an accomplishment of sorts.

    In the 1980s and -90s, performance art lost its aspect of guerilla theater and more or less joined the mainstream. But mainstream acceptance threatened even the possibility that a performance could transform -- and not merely titillate -- its audience. Something of an arms race followed, in which more and greater shocks were sought, along with more spectacular production effects.

    As of 2010, defying convention is no longer liberating, but has itself become conventional, expected, and ultimately cliché. The sort of thing, in other words, that one can watch casually with beer in hand, as some of Stolz's audience evidently did.

    Worse yet, the implicit faith in norms that once prevailed is now so undermined that adherence to any convention feels almost like an arbitrary personal choice.

    In that context, attacks against institutions are more easily perceived as attacks against one's self-selected strategies for living. Instead of standing up for truth, justice, and freedom for all humanity, the artist-social critic can appear to be pitted against her own audience in an irritating tug-of-war over whose arbitrary preferences should prevail.

    Stolz can be seen as an inheritor of the original Dadaists who gained notoriety between the World Wars, particularly in Paris.

    Dada was acutely critical of society, and its critique took the form of unrelenting nonsense, jeering satire, and a kind of transgressive whimsy -- as well as calculated affronts to good taste. But since Dadaists were inclined to reject all standards of value as false at best and hypocritical at worst, the movement could never quite explain why its critique deserved attention, or why Dada actually cared enough to exert itself in opposition to anything.

    Stolz suffers from this paradox, and still more from the lack of something cogent to say. To gain more than a moment's attention, it is not enough to throw a rock through society's window. You have to wrap your missile with a pretty galvanizing message, or risk being reduced to a banal, consumable, quasi-pornographic freak show.

    Unfortunately, this is what has happened to Stolz's piece in fact. The forgiving blanket of obscurity due to indifferent student work is denied her, because of a voyeuristic fascination with something gross going on inside her skin-tight bottoms. The biggest favor we could do her is to forget about the whole thing.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    The question is why? Is it too late? The answer is someone must piss on the floor every few years to remind us how language is a construct, and celebrate the body.

    Source(s): Heidegger > Nietzsche
    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.