I came across this NY Times article and was intrigued as to why people would want to go see a “show” which involves so little movement and seems to mess with your mind. This is the the basic concept in “Selective Memory”, which opened recently at the Chocolate Factory. Selective Memory is a “real-time video performance” about things that never happened. During Selective Memory, a performer stands on a “film-set” in front of a bland dioramic background while cameras show extreme close-ups, pan the area slowly, and make very minuscule movements. This establishes a very unclear relationship between the performer and the audience. The performer often appears to be staring into the cameras, but depending on their angle, the intention behind the stare changes. By having no set narrative, the performance essentially provides a ‘blank canvas’ to the audience, allowing and endless number of narratives to be present.
To read more about “Selective Memory”, click here.
In the article from the New York Times, a woman named Madeline Best serves as the both one of the principal creators of the work and the performer. The work is a study about perception, and is a close-up study of her face in particular. Through various camera angles and lighting effects, the audience perceives Madeline’s face in completely different ways. In one instant she may look angry, or as if she is glaring at the audience, but in the next, the audience sees that she is not angry, she in fact resembles a model. The slow moving camera allows the audience to appreciate the many different aspects of Madeline’s face, seeing things in a new way than they first noticed.
I’d like you to be more critical of something like this. I do not mean to criticize, but rather to think critically about the idea, the concept, and the execution of something like this. I’m not sure what the performance piece as it is described really has to do with selective memory, except perhaps that the fragments of the performer which are magnified represent the small fragments of memory which remain with us, which are disproportionately larger in our memory than they are in reality. If that’s it, then this is an interesting idea, but I then wonder if this is sufficient reason to sit and look at this piece for more than a minute or two? Your post tells me about the article and the art work, but does not do more. I was interested to learn about this venue, which might be worth an unscheduled visit by you and couple of colleagues.