𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑉𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔

Ephemeral systems feat. Daniel R. Marks

Ephemeral art is an obsession, because when images are a commodity, there’s power in resisting them.

There are forms of art that have an inherent relationship with the context of the internet, and some which question its processes. Others still that reject its promise of a permanent shelf-life, reject the idea of being recorded, frustrate efforts to be archived.

Daniel R. Marks has long studied the tensions between systems of practice, documentation and surveillance. They’ve referenced the thinking of Muñoz, where to make work that sits outside of the mainstream also means to reject mainstream forms of recording, storage, and distribution, and unsettling the way we might privilege vision as the primary form of knowing.

Conscript was a compelling expression of this logic… of course, I also discovered and mostly experienced it through social media, so I guess the tensions never cease.

Marks has been generous in opening up about their practice, sharing the inspirations and scripts, the choreographic dimensions of their intent, the vulnerabilities and flaws in the execution.

Conscript is a simulation of systems of art, capital, visual artefacts and vanquishing, built around the Vanishing Point defined by Renaissance art.

Part of the work was a performance piece, where Marks - face abstracted through black paint - rehearses and then performs movements informed by, among other things, a painting of St George and the Dragon, and the MONIAC, a liquid simulator of the economy.

𝑰 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒓𝒚𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝒇𝒊𝒈𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒂 𝒎𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒂𝒍 𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏, 𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚, 𝒂𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒔, 𝒂𝒓𝒕, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒐𝒅𝒚. 𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝒔 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒕 𝒉𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒓𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏? 𝑾𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒇 𝒓𝒆𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒐𝒘𝒂𝒓𝒅𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕, 𝒐𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒔𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒚𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝒐𝒓 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒌𝒏𝒐𝒘𝒍𝒆𝒅𝒈𝒆?

The performance piece itself was documented in just one official way — an eight-minute long photographic exposure, intended to trace the fleeting movements of the choreography.

𝑶𝒏𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒚 𝒎𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒔 𝒊𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒐𝒄𝒖𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒂𝙣𝒅 𝒄𝒂𝒑𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒐𝒅𝒚.

But the image itself unintentionally contains everything but the performer; the movements too fluid to register on the final print.

𝑴𝒚 𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒔 𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒃𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐𝒈𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒔𝒐𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒄𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔.

𝑩𝒖𝒕 𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒂𝒅, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒑𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍. 𝑨𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔, 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒎𝒚 𝒃𝒐𝒅𝒚 𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒏 𝒂𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆, 𝒊𝒕 𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒍𝒆𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒚 𝒗𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒅. 𝑻𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒆 𝒊𝒕𝒔𝒆𝒍𝒇, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒖𝒏𝒘𝒂𝒚, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆, 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒄𝒉𝒊𝒕𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒔𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝙩𝒉𝙖𝒕'𝒔 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒕.

Of course, there was also another kind of documentation in play.

The audience could be fully present, immersed in the work, or get their smartphones out to film or photograph it for themselves. Given the emphasis on controlled capture, there might be the temptation to prevent people from doing so, but —

𝙄 𝙬𝒂𝙨 𝙞𝒏𝙩𝒆𝙧𝒆𝙨𝒕𝙚𝒅 𝒕𝙤 𝙨𝒆𝙚 𝙩𝒉𝙚 𝙢𝒐𝙢𝒆𝙣𝒕𝙨 𝙩𝒉𝙖𝒕 𝒑𝙚𝒐𝙥𝒍𝙚 𝙘𝒉𝙤𝒐𝙨𝒆 𝒕𝙤 𝙘𝒂𝙥𝒕𝙪𝒓𝙚.

— and besides, in our own system, the most effective surveillance is the one we bring upon ourselves.

(Photos or it didn’t happen.)

The audience invites themselves into the moment and completes the circuit:

The official documentation, designed to respect the ephemeral nature of the performance, over-delivers.

The unofficial documentation creates our most tangible record but through subjective, scattered perspectives.

What remains are fragments of what was created: the visual works, the tracing paper scripts, the word of mouth, the received memory.

Remnants, from where the body itself has vanished.

.

.

.

Go further

Daniel R. Marks

Gallery Gallery