I’d never been to the Orpheum before. It sure is big and beauti- ful; deceiving from the outside. But what was really interesting was the contrast between the Granville St. personalities and the forty plus crowd all dressed in charms. I couldn’t help but feel a little out of place with my plastic beads be- and hand-me-downs. In fact, fore the show even began, I came to the realization that my expecta- tions for Laurie and an ageless performance, were like longing for coke from a glass bottle. Not bloody likely. Language alone cannot express the complex wonders of sight and sound. “An image conjures experi- ences, feelings, and thoughts that are often more powerful and reach deeper into the subconscious than those of words.”1 Laurie Anderson’‘s seductive juxtaposition between life’s honest tales and far out-manipulated imagery is, ina sense, a formulated process for breaking down the beauty of forgot- ten familiarities . Avoiding the competitive regime of “star light” aesthetics, she concentrates prima- rily on refined projected imagery and an absolute and lyrical sound quality. Anderson is a fantastic story teller. Using her gravely voice, she pronounces her extreme passion toward the simple and mun- dane yet she consistently borrows political imagery without so much as defining it’s language or of- -"I don’t need a look”, 4 yy }W fering any significant reason for such displacement. Anderson began her career as- suming an androgynous persona within her performances. Since then, her voice has developed a more effeminate style, yet her physical aesthetics remain much the same. While all of her elaborate technological spectacles continue to present themselves as colorful and cleanly refined constructs, she doesn’t seem to be concerned with her own stage appearance. In fact, in her most recent performance, The Nerve Bible, she kind of melts into the stage in her dark cotton casuals. In this case, her theory inevitably backfires. It becomes a distract- ing aesthetic of it’s own. Another formulated “look”, which has become very apparent and problematic within Anderson’s work, is her scattered placement of po- litical imagery. Anderson projects grainy photos, black and red washes, guns and victims, and uses them to touch a distinct communal nerve. “Peoples lives are of course the fragments blowing in controlled ‘randomness, and artists are no exception except for the fact that they tend to view such a situation as freedom rather than control.” 2 In her article, Notes Toward an Activist Performance Art, Lippard discusses the ambiguity to which coexists with a lot of po- litical art, and the notion that political clarity and commitment . change. lessons,the artist’s powerful esthetics and social freedom. She quotes Anderson in saying, ‘I’m really bored with working with things that can only be judged in esthetic terms. That’s not enough anymore. I wanted to look at some- thing more or less real, although the more I look at these political issues, the more unbelievable they become. I’m not interested in facts, images, and theories, which resonate against each other, not in offering solutions. Politics is about problem solving. I wasn’t trying to solve any problems. I was simply looking at problems and using them -for my own purposes.’ This attitude simply alienates Anderson from both her audience and all of her political surroundings. It in no way makes her ideas and images significant, and it demon- strates the same kind of apathetic behavior which is destroying our culture. The irony of it all is that Anderson’s genuine gift as a performer is her ability to reach her audience with her painfully honest stories of everyday life. The Nerve Bible seems to be about time... ‘ is it long or is it wide?’ Anderson continuously ques- tions the audience about the sig- nificance of life and death and reveals her uncertainty of the worlds state. Her admirable and optimistic qualities seemed to have diminished substantially since her days of street talk with her violin and ice skates. I have to question our disappointment toward legendary performers. As a society we tend to hold on to things of both good and bad. When something is good we wish for it to never The problem being, that we are constantly evolving and do not examine things the same way twice. In the same respect, when something is bad, we hold with equal tenac- ity, never forgetting or giving up our disappointment. 1 Mettler, Peter. “Paradox and Wonder.” The Cinema of Peter Metler. 2 tippard, Lucy R. “Notes Toward an Activist Performance Art." Open Letter. page 67. by Qwmenpollowd I’d never been to the Orpheum before. It sure is big and beauti- ful; deceiving from the outside. But what was really interesting was the contrast between the Granville St. personalities and the forty plus crowd all dressed in charms. I couldn’t help but feel a little out of place with my plastic beads and hand-me-downs. In fact, be- fore the show even began, I came to the realization that my expecta- tions for Laurie and an ageless performance, coke from a glass bottle. bloody likely. Language alone cannot express were like longing for Not the complex wonders of sight and “an image conjures experi- feelings, and thoughts that are often more powerful and reach sound. ence: deeper into the subconscious than those of words.”1 Laurie Anderson’s seductive juxtaposition between life’s honest tales and far out-manipulated imagery is, ina breaking down the beauty of forgot- ten familiarities . avoiding the competitive regime of “star light” aesthetics, she concentrates prima- rily on refined projected imagery and an absolute and lyrical sound a formulated process for quality. Anderson is a fantastic story teller. Using her gravely passion toward the simple and mun- dane yet she consistently borrows political imagery without as defining it’s language or of- she pronounces her extreme so much fering any significant reason for such displacement. Anderson began her career as- suming an androgynous persona within her performances. Since then, her voice has developed a more effeminate style, yet her physical aesthetics remain mich the game. While all of her elaborate technological spectacles continue to present themselves as colorful and cleanly refined constructs, she doesn’t seem to be concerned with her own stage appearance. In fact, in her most recent performance, The Nerve Bible, she kind of melts into the stage in her dark cotton casuals. In this case, her theory -"I don’t need a look”, inevitably backfires. It becomes a distract- ing aesthetic of it’s own. Another formulated “look”, which has become very apparent and problematic within Anderson’s work, is her scattered placement of po- litical imagery. grainy photos, black and red washes, guns and victims, them to touch a distinct communal Anderson projects and uses nerve. “Peoples lives are of course the fragments blowing in controlled ‘randomness, and artists are no exception except for the fact that they tend to view such a situation as freedom rather than control." ? In her article, Notes Toward an Activist Performance Art, Lippard discusses the ambiguity to which coexists with a lot of po- litical art, political clarity and commitment and the notion that lessons the artist's powerful esthetics and social freedom. she quotes Anderson in saying, really bored with working with things that can only be judged in esthetic terms. ‘rm ‘That’s not enough anymore. I wanted to look at some- thing more or less real, although the more I look at these political issues, the more unbelievable they become. I’m not interested in facts, images, and theories, which resonate against each other, not in offering solutions. Politics is about problem solving. trying to solve any problems. was simply looking at problems and I wasn’t using them for my own purposes.’ This attitude simply alienates Anderson from both her audience and all of her political surroundings. It in no way makes her ideas and images significant, and it demon- strates the same kind of apathetic behavior which is destroying our The irony of it all is that Anderson’s genuine gift as a culture. performer is her ability to reach her audience with her painfully honest stories of everyday life. The Nerve Bible seems to be about time. wide?’ + 4g it long or is it Anderson continuously ques- tions the audience about the sig- nificance of life and death and reveals her uncertainty of the worlds state. Her admirable and optimistic qualities have diminished substantially since her days of street talk with her seemed to violin and ice skates. I have to question our disappointment toward legendary performers. As a society we tend to hold on to things of both good and bad. is good we wish for it to never ‘The problem being, are constantly evolving and do not When something change. that we examine things the same way twice. In the same respect, when something is bad, we hold with equal tenac- ity, never forgetting or giving up our disappointment. 1 Mettler, Peter. “Paradox and Wonder.” The Cinema of Peter Metler. 2 Lippard, Lucy R. “Notes Toward an Activist Performance Art." Open Letter. page 67. by Dam eubolowd