Liveness: An exhibition-led inquiry
Liveness: An Exhibition Led Enquiry in Restaging the Performance Regret (2021) through an Environment of Performance Relics.
Ida Sophia, 2023
How close can a secondary audience access a Performance Art(1) work when its relics are restaged at a later date? Investigated from an artist perspective, the findings of this paper have been informed through an exhibition led enquiry. In 2021 I performed a 28 day durational work titled Regret at Floating Goose Studios in Tarndanya/Adelaide, Australia. From Regret's inception in 2019, through development, performance and post performance archiving, I considered how this work might retain its liveness for a future, secondary audience. In 2022, I furthered my thinking through authoring the text: Liveness: A Manifesto for 21st Century Performance Artists (Appendix A). The manifesto stated a definition of liveness, why it is important in this art historical moment and what implications it might have for this medium, for audiences and for the sustainability of artists own practices. In 2023 I restaged Regret in an experimental exhibition at Seventh Gallery in Naarm/Melbourne Australia, framed by the aforementioned manifesto. The exhibition investigated how to present performance relics and if the liveness from Regret (2021) could be carried through time to a secondary audience. To culminate the show, I led a discussion and collected feedback to inform elements of this enquiry. The results are suggestive of future restaging efforts that consider the potential, significant effects on artist, institution, audience and art history.
It serves this paper to explain what I believe to be an essential linguistic shift when talking about that which remains from a performance. Often, things both tangible and intangible are described as ‘documentation’. Here, I will name anything that is of a performance as a ‘performance relic’. Documentation suggests identicality: the inherent ability to classify something into a neat category - a photograph for example. Conversely, a relic is defined by an embodied reverence of multiple things it represents, because it is of the performance, the time and all whom were involved - including the present audience. A relic is not an identical document of the performance, but something that has survived to tell a story. Theorist Philip Auslander muses on the use of the word ‘document’ and its incomplete definition when used for performance art as “it may well be that our sense of the presence, power and authenticity of these pieces derives not from treating the document as an indexical access point to a past event but from perceiving the document itself as a performance that directly reflects an artists aesthetic project or sensibility and for which we are the present audience.”(2). I believe that using the more accurate term - relic - allows us to protect this aesthetic sensibility and acknowledge the characteristic of the performance relic to transform as an expected and accepted process over time.
“Liveness is defined here as the active pre-planning, consideration and creation of an environment by the performance artist, which exists around a live performance in order to maintain its liveness.
Liveness is sensory, emotional, tangible and intangible.
Liveness is found not in one remaining relic of the live performance, but maintained in an environment.”
-‘Liveness: A manifesto for 21st Century Performance Artists’ by Ida Sophia, 2022 (excerpt)
In the 2016 paper Body Time, Professor Anne Marsh describes ‘liveness’ as things produced as a result of live performance, particularly in relation to video. Marsh notes that “it is not the same as the live performance but in some ways it enhances the feeling of ‘liveness’ for a distant audience by bringing the action closer to the viewer”(3). Defining the resultant video, objects etc as performance relics saves them from the risk of being categorised wrongly in archives and exhibited without context. Particularly from performance artists working in the 20th century, photographs, drawings, video and objects have been largely organised separately, splintering our ability to understand the liveness of the original performance. I experience the failure of this archival strategy when I re-watch, or gaze over items that lack context. When I read catalogues or old reviews, I wonder about the artist's intention, and if this is the whole story. An exhibition and/or archive that is concerned with liveness is acutely concerned with the secondary audience being able to know - to feel - the performance. To enable them to unravel the conceptual layers, its logistical conditions and have enough space to let it speak with a sense of durational time; both understanding the work as it was and as it is simultaneously.
“Liveness exists in durational time(4). In the past ephemeral, in multiple presents and in the future. Relics perform us, perform themselves, perform time, perform the actions performed on them, perform as mirror to you. Liveness’s character may change over time. This is expected, accepted.”
- ‘Liveness: A manifesto for 21st Century Performance Artists’ by Ida Sophia, 2022 (excerpt)
Recognition of this issue has motivated some institutions to review their acquisition, archival and restaging practices. Previously, performance was viewed as ‘uncollectible’(5) which led to an under-examined period of history and a static archive, unable to cope with the intangible, the bodily, the live. Performance Art was understood to be “at odds with long-established systems and processes for managing art, a material object”(6), causing individual relics to be stripped of their context. This recognition has made it necessary to adjust contemporary perspectives and view performance as more than ephemeral. In the paper Performance Remains Again Schneider asks “if we understand performance as refusal to remain, do we limit/ignore other ways of knowing, other modes of remembering that might be situated precisely in the ways in which performance remains, but remains differently?”(7). To ‘remain differently’ is a radical perspective shift toward the archive. An archive which has previously been focused on identicality, or ‘authentic’ evidence. If performance is something which disappears, then that which remains, photographs/video etc, need to be categorised as performance relics, not as photograph or video. ‘Remaining differently’, then, means that the performance environment does not disappear and thus, Schneider argues that in “the act of remaining and a means of re-appearance and re-participation…we are almost immediately forced to admit that remains do not have to be isolated to the document, to the object…”(8). One strategy for remaining differently is the linguistic shift from document to relic. Underscoring the reverence in relics through this simple act of naming them thus, could ensure that they do not become misunderstood in archives and exhibitions that have previously defined them by material as medium instead of medium as mode. When writing artwork details I suggest the following format example:
Title: Performance Piece Title (YEAR)
Medium: Performance Relic (in brackets list materials i.e: silk, cotton, plaster, sound etc)
Size: (height x length x width)
In 2012, The TATE launched a project “examining emerging practice for collecting and conserving performance-based art”(9) culminating in the ‘Live List’: “A set of prompts to consider when bringing a live work into a collection”(10). Similarly, The Walker Art Centre actively seeks unorthodox collecting strategies such as redefining ‘ownership’ of performance works; “‘ownership’ would not consist of exclusive rights to show, re-perform, or buy or sell these rights but would instead relate to the Walker acquiring its own experience of the work it “owned,” its own documentation, its own collective and individual memories, recorded and not.”(11). Going beyond regular documentation techniques, the Walker is subversive in its “undertaking [of] the intellectual and emotional mapping of the performance creation and experience by artists and viewers alike.”(12) The idea of the archive and restaged exhibition transforming into a space of relic retroaction, rather than a frozen slice of documentation, re-situates it as a site that provides body-to-body transmission. When designing the ‘new’ archive, Schneider suggests that unorthodox “acts of acquisition, reading/writing, educating/ speaking oral tales, or re-enacting” can “reconfigure ‘history’ onto bodies, [resulting in] the affective transmission of showing and telling”(13). In the act of restaging, the institution and their unorthodox strategies are key. However, the breadth of what can be restaged depends on the artist’s consideration, creation and approval over the relics. Their direction is essential to how they remain, how they are intended to be restaged and what level of interpretation maintains liveness. I argue that there are strong motivations for the performance artist to engage with this. Firstly, considering relics is a collaborative act with existing institutional practices, resulting in contributions to contemporary performance art research and the ability for secondary audiences to experience work. Secondly, participating in the restaging of works shapes the future of this medium and acknowledges the foundation from which it has come. Thirdly, it serves the working artist economically(14) by providing a larger breadth of works that are more valuably defined as performance relic’s, instead of mere documentation. If these motivations are not enough, providing an environment of liveness for future performance artists to learn from and to be inspired by is a shared ancestral duty of all artists.
Exhibition Led Enquiry: The Restaging of Regret (2021)
“Liveness is found not in one remaining relic of the live performance, but maintained in an environment. In sound recording(s), video and photographs. In living memory (of the audience, institution, participant or spectator) and written testimony: both spontaneous and commissioned. Liveness is captured in physical objects used for or made during the live performance. Liveness is in the instructions, the conversations and interviews. Liveness is in the location, the clothes, the scents, the social media posts, likes and comments. Liveness is in the drawings and designs, patterns and digital files. Specs and rules. Liveness is in lists, recipes. These, and more, are the relics that hold space for liveness.”
- ‘Liveness: A manifesto for 21st Century Performance Artists’ Ida Sophia, 2022 (excerpt)
In January of 2023, I restaged my 28 day long performance, Regret (2021), at Seventh Gallery in Naarm/Melbourne with the performance relics that I had collected, I did not re-perform the work. Regret (2021) was an act of redemption. For 28 days, 6 hours a day, I observed a monumental installation of flowers decompose. This natural life-to-death process mirrored the effect of disease on my Father’s body that I did not have the courage to face. The performance confronted the regret that I was absent from his side in his last month of life. Time spent in the work represented the time I regretted not spending with him. Spending it here became my redemptive action. Regret (2021) invited the audience to participate and release their own regrets. Weighted pieces of plaster were cast as small writing tablets. After writing a regret, the participant attached it to my clothing. In this act, I physically took on and carried the symbolic weight of regret for the duration of the performance. Over 500 regrets were contributed. On the 28th day, I ceremonially cast off the collective weight I had carried. As a result of this durational performance, I collected the following environment of relics:
Pre-performance photographs photographed and styled by Sharmonie Cockayne, Continuous time lapse video of the full 28 days and nights, professional photographs taken daily by Thomas McCammon, a small amount of dried/moulded flowers, my red undergarment and boots, the custom chair made by Steven Soeffky, the cape holding the plaster regrets, letters given to me by participants, a commissioned participant reflection written by Farrin Foster, a video segment made for the ABC Art Show, a voice interview with ABC Radio, a press cutting from The Advertiser Newspaper, paper ephemera of the invitation and catalogue, Drawings made and gifted by participants in the gallery, memories living in the people who attended, the site of Floating Goose Studios where it occurred, the remaining plaster tablets and the mold I made them in. The heart beat recording (originally pumped live into the space), my journals - from inception of the idea that occurred during the Marina Abramovic Institute ‘Cleaning the House’ Workshop in 2019, through its development and finally throughout the work in June 2021. The instant photographs of the flowers and my own face taken daily, screenshots of the messages and comments shared online, the paper pattern for the cape made by Louise Swann, video recording of the artist talk that followed the performance.
With such a breadth of relics to show, and limited gallery space, I exhibited the silk blue cape with the plaster regrets, the chair, one bouquet each of fresh and moulded flowers, the time lapse video with audio of readings from my journal, polaroid photographs of the flowers and my face taken daily, Thomas McCammon’s photographs, the remaining blank plaster tablets with a reimagined participatory gesture, the soundscape of my heart beat and a printed sheet with the manifesto and participant reflection by Farrin Foster. By presenting relics using the Liveness Manifesto as a guide, the framework was set for visitors to be conscious of their position as ‘secondary audience’ to the original performance. It asked them to consider whether they experienced ‘liveness’ through the relics displayed.
To capture responses and enter into dialogue with audience members, I held a performance lecture at Seventh Gallery on the Liveness Manifesto, concluding it with an open discussion about liveness experienced within the exhibition. Attendees included those who had experienced the original work, those who had followed solely online and those who had only experienced it at Seventh Gallery. I asked them simply in regards to their experience of liveness: what worked? And crucially - what didn’t? Auslander argues the motivation for restaging relics should not be concerned with “captur[ing] the performance as an interactional accomplishment”(15). When I formulated this exhibition, I assumed the feelings of the primary audience were integral for the secondary audience to comprehend the emotive height and conceptual narrative of Regret (2021). To test this assumption, I showed some relics that were prescriptive, edging on sermonic, such as a suite of photographs and my audio recorded journal entries. They clearly explained how the performance began and where it ended up 28 days later. An audience member commented “I feel like this as an object (the blue cape) allows space for the audience to bring their own energy and interpretation to the work, I think that it holds, that it does everything that the work itself was trying to do… Maybe photos are overcomplicating it beyond the objects.”(16). It occurred to me then, that I had not fully accepted or expected Regret (2021) to be re-experienced any differently in 2023 than it was in 2021. I sought to control the experience of visitors through sheer bombardment of relics. I felt it important to envelop the audience. This left little space for a fresh encounter. One audience member mused “You do get that temporal experience seeing this (The cape laden with regrets), knowing that it happened over 28 days, [you get] that sense of time, [it] holds that sense of connection to people. You look at that and you know how heavy it is, whereas when you look at a photograph, you don’t get that same sense. You’re standing back and telling me about the work. It is the objects themselves that speak to me directly.”(17) In restaging too many didactic performance relics, they were at risk of being a complete answer. Upon reflection, the photographic relics constrained time to within those 28 days, lessening the capacity for the concept of Regret (2021) to reach out and speak to the present experience of the ‘2023’ viewer. A revision could be to show photographs of the beginning of the performance only, allowing the object based relics to narrate the rest of the performance. Another element requiring reflection was the way I showed them - A2 sized, dominating the wall space and commanding an immediate impression. In the original performance, monumentality was experienced in the flower installation which was approximately 3m wide by 2m high. The presence of flowers living and dying was so palpable, particularly when experienced en masse. I was attempting to recreate this ‘monumental’ sensory element through the scale of the photographs. Restaging the element of monumentality would have been more effective by simply restaging the flowers in their original scale. Each relic should re-situate the performance into the present in order to reexamine the original question posed. In this case: ‘What do you regret?’ as opposed to ‘this was what was regretted’. It was suggested that, complimentary to the objects and sensorial elements (sounds, smells) that the photographs and text could be collated in a book, provided as a complimentary resource of liveness that wouldn’t supersede the body-to-body transmission of the object/sensory based relics restaged in the exhibition.
I was aware that a sensory based strategy was required to create an opportunity for audiences to direct their own experience of liveness. The thud of my heartbeat rang out rhythmically into the space, accessing bodies vibrationally. Noses were filled with both fresh and moulding flower scents. I reimagined the participatory gesture that echoed the same experience of holding a plaster writing tablet in hand and hearing the scratch of a Sharpie on its chalky surface. Although I was not there to receive and hold regrets, the act of holding the weighted plaster tablet and externalising ones regret was an important element of Regret (2021). The instruction became:
Take a plaster writing tablet and pen.
Write down your regret.
Take the tablet with you. Feel the weight of your regret. Carry it for 28 days.
Release the weight. Move forward without it.
During discussion, some expressed this participatory gesture was a diluted version of the original (expressed by someone who had seen the original), yet, as conversation expanded, the action was deemed necessary to the secondary audience members experience of liveness. “I feel like I've been thinking about it (the written regret in 2023) a few times. I have a reminder in my phone for the 28th day. Its something that comes up in my mind - When can I get rid of my regret? I am taking myself through the whole process.”(17). It appears that the reimagined participatory gesture enabled a successful transmission of Regret’s (2021) liveness and positively validated the experiment of reintroducing the participant action.
The results of this exhibition led enquiry lead me to suggest a series of performance relic tiers that, during restaging, provide multi-faceted experiences of liveness. These may be helpful when the artist faces the restaging paradox that theorist Rudolf Frieling describes as “How to provide conditions for a moment of rupture but also serendipity, as an opening of the senses toward an engagement that could reveal the participants behaviour to themselves as well as to the public and possibly produce an unexpected set of behaviours?”(18). The first - physical and sensorial - relics that pose open questions, provide body-to-body transmission and allow breathing room for re-encounter. I note that restaging could include a participatory gesture, a kind of sensory physical involvement even if the original performance was not participatory. Inviting the audience to touch, or act out a gesture allows them to live the work, hold it and take that experience away. The second tier includes video and audio elements. These allow the secondary audience to view the original action, space and audience. They hear the sounds of that performance and/or the artists voice speaking to the work. The third tier is photographic and text based relics. By providing these relics at the final stage as either a physical book or in digital form, rounds out the environment of liveness depth for those who seek it. This was an important point during the discussion where it was noted: “Less is more, it’s about how you present it to the secondary audience, and, depending on their curiosity to understand it on their own terms, the provision of the rest of the environment secondary to the sensory.”(19).
Where do intangible relics fit in? The characteristic slipperiness, un-archivable quality curses and/or blesses them with a finite existence. Most intangible relics exist in the living memory of the primary audience or in the physical spaces where the work was performed, silently resting in walls or floors; sometimes visible as a stain or only palpable in the feeling that ‘something’ happened there. Ideas were thrown around. Perhaps a list of consenting original participants could be contacted at a later date to retell their memory. Whimsically, there could be the “beautiful possibility that there is a draw full of nothing”(20) ‘nothing’ representing the intangible liveness. The discussion group attempted to fill this ‘drawer’ with vessels to hold the intangible. Text, sound recordings of voices and video interviews were felt to be the most appropriate. This desire to hold onto something that resisted being held made me wonder if allowing the intangible relics to be (only) of their time, could allow for separate intangible relics to be created by secondary audiences. This way the fluidity of performance can continue, unencumbered. Contrasting this, I do feel that an interview with the Artist about the work and their experience of it is one intangible memory relic whose vessel as video recording would always serve the restaging, whether it is used or not. This is a personal preference for the artist, and can be viewed both as a way to semi-control the restaging and/or, to protect the intention of the work.
Indeed, restaging is an exercise in performance artists accepting their work as fluid over time and resisting a socially accepted obsession with identicality. In trying to impose some of the original experiences from Regret (2021) onto the secondary audience, I acutely experienced this innate fluidity and the futility of my attempt to control it. Liveness has its own life and relics will restate themselves by “perform(ing) us, perform(ing) themselves, perform(ing) time, perform(ing) the actions performed on them, perform(ing) as mirror to you.”(21). Although I intuited these things prior to the exhibition at Seventh Gallery, I had not experienced them working in real time. Theorist Martin Patrick has written extensively on restaging, noting that “perhaps the most significant aspect of art involving strategic reworking, recombining and reenactments is that, at least in the moment of generative examples, the process of restaging is not simply an act of restating. In multiple, notable ways, the act of re-envisioning an event, image or work is to realign, redirect and reconceive its contact with the world in relation to its audience and circulation.”(22) The essential motivation of a performance work - the question it asks its audience cannot be expected to restate itself in the identical context it was first posed. Restaging liveness, as opposed to restating the original, understands that the concept is fluid and will transform over time. Our acceptance and active preparation for this as artists, art workers, and secondary audiences aids contemporary unorthodox archival/restaging practices, extends the capacity of academic examination of this period of art history and heightens the value of relics to sustain performance art careers.
“Liveness considers the educational value for future artists and academics looking to study, analyse and learn from previous performance works.
Liveness is a conceptual studio strategy that operates alongside (and after) the development and production of the live performance.
Liveness seeks to influence and contribute to unorthodox archiving practices.
…Liveness acknowledges that 21st century performance artists make work as ancestors of 20th Century performance artists and that this liveness manifesto was written as a result of that legacy and 21st Century political/social, digital, economic and art historical contexts.”
‘Liveness: A manifesto for 21st Century Performance Artists’ by Ida Sophia, 2022 (excerpt)
This enquiry is not comprehensive, but speculative and suggestive of ideas to take on and into the future of performance art creation and restaging of liveness. Further experimentation into types of relics and how they can be restaged needs to be conducted in a range of situations in order to fully realise the most powerful experience for secondary audiences. As with all good experiments, time is needed here. The 2 years between Regret (2021) and its restaging in 2023 was enough to reflect critically, but I wonder at what another 10, 20 or 50 years will mean to how its liveness is felt in a time when no primary audience remains.
Footnotes
Performance Art as opposed to the Performing Arts such as Theatre or Dance.
Auslander, Philip. “The Performativity of Performance Documentation” in Performance Art Journal 28, no 3, 2006, 9
Marsh, Anne. “Body Time” 2016. Accessed 13/8/22 http://annemarsh.com.au/body-time.html
Durational Time, or La Duree is described in Henri Bergson’s ‘Time and Free Will’ 1889 as one experiencing the past, present and future all at once subjectively, rather than a single unit measurement of time objectively.
Bither, Philip. “Collecting: In Terms of Performance” 2016. Accessed 13/8/22 http://intermsofperformance.site/keywords/collecting/philip-bither
Bither, “Collecting”
Schneider, Rebecca. “Performance Remains Again” in Archeologies of Presence: Art Performance and the persistence of being. Ed. by Gabriella Giannachi, Nick Kaye and Michael Shanks. (New York: Routledge, 2012), 71
Schneider, “Performance Remains Again”. 71
Laurenson, Pip. “Collecting The Performative” 2012. Accessed 13/8/22. https://www.tate.org.uk/about-us/projects/collecting-performative
Laurenson, Pip, Christiane Berndes, Hendrik Folkerts, Diana Franssen, Adrian Glew, Panda de Haan, Ysbrand Hummelen, Andrea Lissoni, Isabella Maidment, Angela Matyssek, Kate Parsons, Capucine Perrot, Vivian van Saaze, Tatja Scholte, Patricia Smithen, Sanneke Stigter, Paulien ‘t Hoen, Renée van de Vall and Gaby Wijers, ‘The Live List: What to Consider When Collecting Live Works’. TATE: Collecting the Performative Network, 2014. Accessed 13/8/22 http://www.tate.org.uk/about-us/projects/collecting-performative/live-list.
Bither, “Collecting”
Bither, “Collecting”
Schneider, “Performance Remains Again”. 74
Let us not wince at artists desiring a sustainable practice that allows us to make more art, rather than cappuccinos. The writer Be Oakley, in their Manifesto For Survival (2021) states (in the context of making anti-capitalist gestures within a capitalist society, ) that artists should be valued enough and earn enough “profit-to-continue-our-work-without-other-means-of-capital’.
Auslander, Philip. “The Performativity of Performance Documentation”, 6
Personal Communication, February 3, 2023.
Personal Communication, February 3, 2023.
Frieling, Rudolf. “Participation: In Terms of Performance” 2016. Accessed 13/8/22 http://intermsofperformance.site/keywords/participation/rudolf-frieling
Personal Communication, February 3, 2023.
Personal Communication, February 3, 2023.
Sophia, Ida “Liveness: A Manifesto for 21st Century Performance Artists” 2022.
Patrick, Across The Art/Life Divide, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2017), 141
Oakley, Be “Manifesto for Survival” 2021, Gender Fail Publication
Appendix A
Liveness: A Manifesto for 21st Century Performance Artists by Ida Sophia, 2022.
Liveness is defined here as the active pre-planning, consideration and creation of an environment by the performance artist, which exists around a live performance in order to maintain its liveness.
Liveness is sensory, emotional, tangible and intangible.
Liveness is found not in one remaining relic of the live performance, but maintained in an environment. In sound recording(s), video and photographs. In living memory (of the audience, institution, participant or spectator) and written testimony: both spontaneous and commissioned. Liveness is captured in physical objects used for or made during the live performance. Liveness is in the instructions, the conversations and interviews. Liveness is in the location, the clothes, the scents, the social media posts, likes and comments. Liveness is in the drawings and designs, patterns and digital files. Specs and rules. Liveness is in lists, recipes. These, and more, are the relics that hold space for liveness.
The creation of an environment of liveness is specifically motivated.
Liveness exists in durational time. In the past ephemeral, in multiple presents and in the future. Relics perform us, perform themselves, perform time, perform the actions performed on them, perform as mirror to you. Liveness’s character may change over time. This is expected, accepted.
Liveness considers the educational value for future artists and academics looking to study, analyse and learn from previous performance works.
Liveness is a conceptual studio strategy that operates alongside (and after) the development and production of the live performance.
Liveness seeks to influence and contribute to unorthodox archiving practices.
Liveness is inherently co-maintained by the institutions/locations who showed the work and the people who saw and/or responded to it, therefore the breadth of liveness is not the solely created by the artist. The artist facilitates its creation and curation through commissioning writers, leaving books for comments, collecting relics, etc.
Liveness is an aid for re-enactment of the ‘original’ performance.
Liveness is access.
Liveness is a performative environment.
Liveness creates a series of works for the performance artist desiring sustainable, economic viability as they work in late-capitalism with the perspective of “profit-to-continue-our-work-without-other-means-of-capital”(23).
Liveness acknowledges that 21st century performance artists make work as ancestors of 20th Century performance artists and that this liveness manifesto was written as a result of that legacy and 21st Century political/social, digital, economic and art historical contexts.
Bibliography
Auslander, Philip. “The Performativity of Performance Documentation” in Performance Art Journal 28, no 3, 2006. 1-10.
Bither, Philip. “Collecting: In Terms of Performance” 2016. Accessed 10/8/22. http://intermsofperformance.site/keywords/collecting/philip-bither
Frieling, Rudolf. “Participation: In Terms of Performance” 2016. Accessed 10/8/22. http://intermsofperformance.site/keywords/participation/rudolf-frieling
Laurenson, Pip. “Collecting The Performative” 2012. Accessed 13/8/22. https://www.tate.org.uk/about-us/projects/collecting-performative
Laurenson, Pip, Christiane Berndes, Hendrik Folkerts, Diana Franssen, Adrian Glew, Panda de Haan, Ysbrand Hummelen, Andrea Lissoni, Isabella Maidment, Angela Matyssek, Kate Parsons, Capucine Perrot, Vivian van Saaze, Tatja Scholte, Patricia Smithen, Sanneke Stigter, Paulien ‘t Hoen, Renée van de Vall and Gaby Wijers, ‘The Live List: What to Consider When Collecting Live Works’. TATE: Collecting the Performative Network, 2014. Accessed 13/8/22. http://www.tate.org.uk/about-us/projects/collecting-performative/live-list.
Marsh, Anne. “Body Time” 2016. Accessed 10/8/22. http://annemarsh.com.au/body-time.html
Marsh, Anne. performance_ritual_document. South Yarra: Macmillan Art Publishing, 2014.
Patrick, Martin. Across The Art/Life Divide. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2017.
Schneider, Rebecca. “Performance Remains Again” in Archeologies of Presence: Art Performance and the persistence of being. Edited by Gabriella Giannachi, Nick Kaye and Michael Shanks. 64-81. New York: Routledge, 2012
