Can you please give us your definition of performance art? What got you involved in this from of artistic expression? Are there any negative aspects to focusing on this medium?
MA: Performance for me is when the performer step into his own mental and physical construction in the public. It’s a kind of energy dialogue. They are not rehearsed. They are not repeated, but done once, basically. There is a concept that is a platform for the performer to follow, but at the same time, he doesn’t know the outcome of the performance in that moment. It is very different from the theatre. There is a constant dialogue between the performer and the public. I got involved with performance after making sound installations. At one point I started using my body, and I never could go back into the seclusion of the studio and just make objects or other types of artwork. Performance really was something that fit my nature the best. The negative aspect is that after performances, many artists could not continue because of the amount of effort and energy. And you’re permanently exposed to the public, and many times the artist’s nature needs the seclusion of the studio, and they need to make objects and installations. They cannot just maintain performing for long periods of time. It is very difficult. The second thing is the market. There is nothing left over. There is not much except the memory of the audience.
Rhythm 0, 1974. Instructions. There are 72 objects on the table that one can use on me as desired. 6 hours, Studio Morra. All images here courtesy of Sean Kelly.
I think that it is fair to say that you have faced death a few times in the performance of your pieces. Is there not a line to be drawn about what should or should not occur during a performance?
MA: It is complicated. First of all, in the performances I create a structure where I can really go far into the physical limits that a body can take. I don’t want to die. That is not the purpose. I want to experience the edge and how much I can take this edge. There was one performance when the public took all the responsibility. This was the piece Rhythm 0, where the control was not in my hands any more. The other possibility is with the borderline between the public and the former. When the public is participating there are all kinds of possibilities where they can intervene and change the flow of the performance, change the meaning of the performance. But in my case I don’t want to give the public that much freedom. I think the public have a frame. There was one piece with Ulay where a person from the public attacked me during the performance with a karate jump. This was arranged by us just to provoke that question, what is the borderline between the public and the performance?
You’ve used pig’s blood and skeletons in your works. You’ve incorporated many objects into your work that are associated with biology, or to be more specific, the decomposition and dissection of the animal. In a way, it appears as if you are holding some sort of a Communion between the audience and the artist, a kind of an artistic substantiation where the blood and body are actual. Do you, then, believe in the idea of a spirit? If so, how do you use the spirit in your art?
MA: Yes, I definitely do. First of all, all the objects used change meaning by repetition. In some cases it is a long process. The artist and the public need time to enter a state of mind, and this state of mind can be achieved through repetition and the long duration of the piece. Every element and material becomes something else. You open the door and close it. That’s just opening and closing a door. But over hours, it becomes something else. It can take on another meaning. Elements like blood, bones, knives, honey, milk, and wine all have a spiritual meaning and not just in the performances.
Cleaning the Mirror II, 1995. 90 minutes, Oxford University Performed for video.
In many of your works, you’ve dared the limits of pain and fear. Following your break-up with Ulay, there seems to be a noticeable shift from that direction. In your 1993 work, Biography, you announced "Goodbye pain. Goodbye extremes. Goodbye self-denial," and "Goodbye Ulay." Have these farewells been realized, and where do you thing you’re going from here?
MA: There’s no such kind of a logical ending in dealing with pain. The Biography performance include all the other performances in very short periods of time and I had to come to the kind of climax of the piece in less than 3 minutes. You see very early performances with real blood, knives, whatever you were using. In the middle of the piece I switched into the conglomerate period, walking the Chinese wall saying bye-bye to all these things, but in the end I go back to it, to performances that involve pain. It is not linear. It’s more circular. Things come and go. It’s not that I am finished with pain. I am always taking and analyzing all elements.
What influences your art? Is it the politics of the day?
MA: I definitely am not interested in politics although it cannot be denied that some of my pieces have a political context. I am really more into the transcendental aspects of the work. You can transfer ideas and make changes in the observer’s mind.
How do you judge the effectiveness of your pieces? What in your opinion is you best work to date and why?
MA: When I perform, I have to be there a hundred percent. For me then, it is beyond good or bad. I can’t judge anymore. If I am less than a hundred percent, then the piece is not as good. If you are in the present, what I call the here and now of the piece, the public can get affected. Some of them can’t leave. You see the emotions of the people. Some are very angry or excited. All these extremes, but then again my works are about extremes. The piece for me is the work right now called Expiring Body, a media installation inspired by my trip to India. It’s the closest to me right now. At the same time, I don’t look to the past. I look to the new work. It’s changing all the time.
Spirit House, 1997. 15 minutes, Amsterdam. Performed for video.
With this new computer age, do you foresee yourself getting involved with artistic projects over the internet, as did Stelarch? Do you see a need for such technological involvement?
MA: You know, I never touch the computer, I don’t drive the car. I am technologically at the beginning. I always feel that technology is all progress, all reckless. You become an invalid without looking at your own abilities. But I see the internet as something positive because you can connect so many people around the globe, and I’ve considered working with it..
After all these questions, it would be interesting to know your definition of art.
MA:For me, I see myself as a bridge between the east and the west. I think the function of the artist is to change the ways humans can think. The key role, like Duchamp or that kind of an artist, is to change the way that society thinks. The important thing is to find the point where society will change. To me good art and artists will have to have not just one, but many layers. Artists have to be analysts of society. What will be the future?
And what do you think is vital for young artists to "make it" in today’s world?
MA:One thing that is really important is to understand who they are. This what I feel that not many people do. Many artists will just look around and don’t really go into themselves. Be the most honest about it. Make works that make sense. Avoid art pollution.