State of Decay

      In class, I talked about how theatre remains in this continual space of decay. I brought up one of Anselm Kiefer’s works as an example. I’d like to expand and unpack more on this idea/notion. First, I’d like to give you a little more background information on Anselm Kiefer himself, and later relate his work to our discussion about theatre and acting.

 Lot's Wife, 1989

Anselm Kiefer, a German painter and sculptor born on March 8, 1945, is an artist that’s known for his controversial and taboo issues (displayed throughout his work). Known for studying under Joseph Beuys, he often worked with natural or obscure materials such as straw, grass, sand, wood, glass, salt and even ash. A major theme in his artwork is coming to terms with Germany’s past (pertaining to his country’s struggle and devastation during the Holocaust)(Huyssen, 1992, p.86). His deliberate strategy of opening up Pandora’s box of fascist and nationalist imagery of his homeland’s past (the Holocaust) has ultimately gained him fame in the United States, while stirring up unwanted memories in Germany (Huyssen, 1992, p.86). One of his most interesting and compelling pieces is his Lot’s Frau (Lot’s Wife) painting. Made of chalk, polymere emulsion, salt, linseed oil, stucco, ash, and other applied elements, the painting incorporates a lot of grats and earth tones to invoke a feeling of abandonment. On the barren landscape are a set of railroad tracks, which refer to the bleakness of the Holocaust. The transformed landscape is perceived to be a metaphor for human suffering (which is further emphasized by the use of ash). The feeling of devastation is definitely present in the painting. Moreover, the torn edges along with the ash-covered canvas echoes this idea that it has survived a fire (Gorslin).

Kiefer’s painting was (intentionally) designed to deteriorate. The painting itself has begun to fall apart (ash and other such materials falling to the ground). This artistic image ultimately unveils the theme of absence, death, and decay. And at the same time, because the art piece is dying, the essence of life becomes more valuable. That is, the artwork incorporates or engages its viewers/spectators in such a way that they recognize that life is more precious when they witness an actual deterioration or decay, and/or destruction of something (that’s visually, artistically, or poetically alive). This is quite similar to how we treat Shakespearean texts and the like. In other words, after recognizing that some kind of literary work might be lost, the text itself then becomes more valuable to us. I want to return now to the quotes discussed in class.

“Acting…seems to contain in itself the seeds of perpetual renovation and decay” (Hazlitt, 132). As I stated in class, acting—and theatrical performances in general—are constantly in a space of decay. What I mean by this is that an original performance is difficult to preserve. A play can be seen from numerous angles and perspectives, and is always changing depending on what’s happening on stage (concerning the actors, actual environment, vibe of the room, lighting, and so forth). Therefore, it’s practically impossible to contain (record and/or document) a single performance in its purest form. However, despite this, our culture is still so worried or concerned about things decaying that we try to preserve artistic and literary works, such as Shakespeare’s plays. That is, we desperately try to hold onto or re-create a memory of an original work.

Similarly to acting’s ability to decay, Kiefer’s painting is also decaying. However, Kiefer embraces this aspect of his work. Over the years, many people have discussed “fixing” (making repairs to) his work since ash and other such elements have broken off the painting (relating to how we try to hold onto preserving original works in their “purest” form). Kiefer, however, insists that the work remain the way it is. The materials that he has used allows for the painting to deteriorate and change overtime, similar to how a play is able to be altered, evolve, and/or even deteriorate over time. There is just something so raw and natural about the lifespan of these artistic spaces. Moreover, just as theatre serves as a “place where the mind investigates how it remembers,” (Holland 221), Kiefer’s artwork functions in a similar way, as it was designed to serve as a reminder for Germany’s horrific past. It’s interesting to see how Kiefer, who didn’t even live through or experience World War II, would attempt to remind his fellow Germans of their past. Nevertheless, he used his canvas as a space where he can investigate remembering (memory, recalling, and so forth) what has taken place. Both theatre and the canvas are important tools for recalling particular actions (and thereby creating a kind of psychological drama/investigation for both author/creator and spectator alike).

      In short, I think that it’s interesting to see that both theatre and artworks like Kiefer’s leave room for decay. In addition, both try to re-create a memory through a kind of performance (whether it be acting or a brushstroke). I also think that it’s somewhat ironic that things become more important or valuable to us because they are in a state of decay. That is, decay and deterioration somehow reinforces our attempt to preserve things. I gave Kiefer's painting as an example, but can anyone think of another? In my opinion, even though we acknowledge that things perish, it's somehow difficult for us to accept that. Somehow, this entire circling around death and deterioration makes me think of the complete opposite, that is to say, the complete opposite of decay. Perhaps my thoughts concerning decay can be summed up in one simple quote, which is, “Art teaches nothing except the significance of life” (Henry Miller).