FORUM: QUALITATIVE SOCIAL RESEARCH SOZIALFORSCHUNG

Performance, Art and Ethnography

Sarah Butler
Key words: performance) contemporary art) ethnography) refle(ivity) social constructivism

Folume G) ?o. %) #rt. /1 May %&&B

Abstract: The history of performance art can be compared with the social sciences pursuit of cultural critique and commentary. Methods and theoretical frameworks are borrowed from anthropological field research throughout this analysis of Montreal artist Olivia BOU !"#U$s %&&' performance Salle C. "(ploring performance art through ethnography provides refle(ive) conte(t* dependent renderings of time*sensitive work+acknowledging both artists$ and visitors$ per* spectives. This is an interpretation of performance ,not limited to traditional formal and material culture analyses- that seeks to demonstrate an ethnographic rendering of performance) and perfor* mative appreciation of audience and artist. Table of Contents .. Salle C %. "thnography /. 0erformance and 0ractice 1. 2ituating !eactions 3. 4eading !eactions 5. 6onclusion #cknowledgments !eferences #uthor 6itation

1. Salle C
Before entering Salle C of the 4eonard and Bina "llen #rt 7allery) 8 found my path obstructed by a floor*to*ceiling pro9ection of someone$s 9ean*clad seat. :rom wall*to*wall) the blue*9eaned bottom appeared alternately as a still and a slightly moving image; 8 noted the sitter$s goose bumps) but wasn$t sure if 8 was free to go behind the screen or not. <.= There 8 found the source of the image: a woman) appro(imately my age) in the center of the room between a camera and a reverse image of her lower torso. >er posture ad9usted as 8 entered the room. #s she crossed her legs and leaned her head on her fist) she appeared to me at first as !odin$s Thinker. <%= 8 was shocked by what could be a confrontational scenario. ?ow in this woman$s presence) with the screen behind me) and no barrier between us) 8 felt an enforced intimacy. 8 had no choice but to go forward and e(perience) thus become part of the piece+yet still without understanding what this commitment entailed. 8t took me a minute to gain my bearings and to reconnect the image with this real person. @hile only seconds before the woman$s image was e(ponentially larger*than*life+here she was small) somehow fragile for the lack of interface
A %&&B :C2 http:DDwww.qualitative*research.netDfqsD :orum Cualitative 2oEialforschung D :orum: Cualitative 2ocial !esearch ,822? .1/B*35%'-

FQS G,%-) #rt. /1) 2arah Butler: 0erformance) #rt and "thnography

between us. The vacuum opened by this @iEard of OE*like anticlima( occurred as an e(pansive doubt) the scenario itself so counter to e(pectation. 8 found no familiar signs to guide my ne(t steps. 2he avoided my approach) shifting her gaEe from the pro9ection and away from me. 4acking invitation or instruction from this person in the center of the room ,who) it turns out was the artist: Olivia BOU !"#U-) 8 hesitated to break the loop connecting her) her image and the camera. </= 2everal questions occur at once. :irst) what were BOU !"#U$s e(pectations of the audienceH 2hould visitors adopt the modernist stance of distanced contemplationH 2hould they behave as participatory) interactive agentsH espite some prior knowledge of the piece) the ontological shift was disturbing. Other visitors might have assumed for a few moments that BOU !"#U was another) particularly intense gallery*goer. >ow long would it take to deduce that) as the artist) she was the situation$s authorH On the far wall in a finished wood case with sliding glass doors) 8 found an e(pansive series of mini* F cassettes. The first had been dated and marked hourly) with lapses overnights and on 2undays. >ere was the artist) determined to remain under her own and others$ surveillance from May 3 to Iune G) the duration of the e(hibition.

:igure .: Olivia BOU !"#U) Salle C) video still) %&&') courtesy of the artist <1=

!eluctant to leave) 8 broached a careful J>elloH #re you OliviaHJ ?othing. #nother gentle prod: J2alutH 6$est toi l$artisteH.J #gain. ?othing. <3= Throughout the weeks) memory of Olivia BOU !"#U$s presence returned. 8 couldn$t shake that moment of impact) her physical presence so dwarfed by the scale of her digital pro9ection. 8 couldn$t keep from thinking of Salle C as an e(pression of humanness: of patience) endurance) dedication and calm. @hat was most intriguing was what the piece would not reveal. >ow would it be to sit for .3& hours in these conte(ts: on display) vulnerable to public scrutiny) yet
. 8n Cuebec) use of the vous form among those of the same generation is considered too formal. 8 use the familiar form of tu because Olivia BOU !"#U seems to be a similar age.

A %&&B :C2 http:DDwww.qualitative*research.netDfqsD

FQS G,%-) #rt. /1) 2arah Butler: 0erformance) #rt and "thnography

alone) faced with your own every movement magnified on screen) with only the hourly e(change of video cassettes to break the continuity of nowH 8 wanted to know other visitors$ responses. @as everyone as careful and mystified as myselfH @hat were the others thinking when they stepped so defiantly near to BOU !"#U) when they called out at her) and when they overlooked herH 8 wanted to know the internal revelations brought through the process. @as BOU !"#U reciting a list of things to doH Thinking of her mundane obligations: the groceries) phone*calls ... or e(periencing herself as an artwork: thinking of ne(t pro9ects) some earlier visitors$ remarks and behaviorH 8 assumed she must go through alternating periods of intense inspiration) epiphany) an(iousness) and longing. @as there an overall pattern to these thoughts) feelings and sensations variable over the e(tended durationH >ow is it to consider being itself as a work of artH <5= 8n a %&&3 performance entitled Vaches) Olivia BOU !"#U tied herself to a cow in an open field. Fideo documentation shows the pair alternately far in the distance) then passing by quite near. 8n other scenes both artist and animal are absent) the point of view a gray rural landscape. 2alle 6 addresses similar themes of process and duration. BOU !"#U enacts a simplified) yet determined and persistent submission to the passing present. #s a result she reveals a profound variety and comple(ity within human interpretation. >ere) video docu* mentation of 2alle 6 reflects the shiver*inducing conte(ts of the gallery to underline visitor reactions to scenarios devoid of normative relational roles.

:igure %: Olivia BOU !"#U) Salle C) installation view) %&&') courtesy of the artist <'=

2. Ethnography
Before continuing) 8 would like to elaborate the ethnographic method 8 propose. #s the late performance studies guru wight 6O?CU"!7OO has said: JThe rethinking of ethnography is primarily about speaking and listening) instead of observing ... <shifting= emphasis from space to time) from sight and vision to

A %&&B :C2 http:DDwww.qualitative*research.netDfqsD

FQS G,%-) #rt. /1) 2arah Butler: 0erformance) #rt and "thnography

sound and voice) from te(t to performance) from authority to vulnerabilityJ ,.GG.) p..G.-. <B= !efle(ivity is really the key. # refle(ive ethnography answers questions of how cultural phenomena ,environments) artifacts) groups) etc.- construct selves) so that the Jnew ethnography ... author<s= a self within a context of others ... through the te(tual construction of) and thoughtful reflection about) the lived experiences of that selfJ ,7OO #44) %&&&) p..G.-. This writing is unabashedly self*conscious considering ob9ective knowledge and documentation of reality impossible. @e can only know the world through our perceptions of it: combining our culture) history and notions regarding the future to reveal as much about our selves as my other. 8n this method of cultural inquiry) acknowledged and inescapable sub9ectivity provides evidence not only of the conte(ts and communities in which 8 interact) but also of my self as their product. <G= #lways at issue with this approach are the histories of museums and anthropology. #s the ethnographers who advocated the te(tual turn in anthropology: 6lifford 7""!TK) Iames 648::O! and 7eorge M#!6U2) we broach the divide between self*awareness and narcissism with caution. @hile 8 would discuss the globaliEed art industry as an arena of free e(pression and creativity) the problems of representation across cultural) national) religious and linguistic barriers) issues related to the dominant ideology of what art is and who produces whose culture+may forever need to be addressed. My principle responsibility) my central intent) here) remains to amplify the voice and concerns of the individuals and communities 8 describe) to contribute my fiction to a continuous and growing intersub9ectivity. <.&= 8n this case) Salle C is situated in Cuebec) %&&') and is attended by a primarily academic audience. Many of its visitors are students) faculty) and administrative or service staff from the gallery$s host) 6oncordia University. My own e(perience at 6oncordia was framed by bachelor$s studies in cultural anthropology) perhaps most characteriEed through 0rofessor avid >O@"2$ emphasis on multisensorial e(pressions of art and aesthetics in anthropology) and e(tra*curricular interests in e(perimental documentary film. The gallery) under the direction of MichLle T>M!8#U4T) aims to present intelligent conceptual e(hibitions of emerging and established artists) e(ploring ways of thinking sensitive to issues and discussions relevant within the international contemporary field) yet emphasiEing the local Montreal conte(t. <..= #n important complement to purely formal analysis+especially with performance art+ethnography includes use*based and tactical descriptions of events) reaping the possibilities inherent in the gallery as a space for cultural critique. Through artists$ and curators$ creation of places where roles and e(pectations are obscured) we gain important insights into groups$ cultural assumptions) so that fields of creativity provide a prime resource for qualitative sociological e(perimentation and study. <.%=

A %&&B :C2 http:DDwww.qualitative*research.netDfqsD

FQS G,%-) #rt. /1) 2arah Butler: 0erformance) #rt and "thnography

Through addressing the arts from a visitor*level we further understand structures of the global art industry as one part of a broader social milieu. "(hibitions are no longer didactic e(pressions) but generative models) wherein the best e(amples provide multiple access*points to dialogues between structures ,even when overtly artist*authored or hypothetical- and agents ,whether or not characteriEed by roles and assumptions manifest by previous knowledge of the arts-. "thnographic interpretations need not re9ect the artists$ intents in e(change for audience reception+the point of contention between the two can be so insightful. This) again) is why it is important to protect cultural institutions from commercial* or market*driven programming) and to be wary of privileging one form of creativity over others. <./=

3. Performance and Practice

:ollowing the ideas of Fictor TU!?"! through to >omi N B>#B>#) 6O?CU"!7OO traces the tra9ectory of performance art as it flows from mimesis) to poesis) to kinesis+through Eones of contention to theoriEation as Jtrue for the everyday resisting performance practices of subaltern groups as it is for performance studies programs.J ?o longer tied to the theater or as inauthentic play*acting) performance comes to a point of actualiEing reconstruction) referring to Jaction that incessantly insinuates) interrupts) interrogates) antagoniEes) and decenters powerful master discoursesJ ,6O?CU"!7OO ) .GG3) p../B-. 0erformance) inasmuch as it is lived) is as real) truthful) and authentic an e(perience as any other socially*scripted conte(t or rite. 8t is being) as art. <.1= 8n the social sciences) :rench theorist Michel " 6"!T"#U describes thetraces the tra9ectory of performance art as it flows importance of critically analyEing everyday cultural systems from both levels of tactics and strategies. The significance of user*based perspectives) as e(plored in the Practice of Everyday Life:
JThe presence and circulation of a representation ,taught by preachers) educators) and populariEers as the key to socioeconomic advancement- tells us nothing about what it is for its users. @e must first analyEe its manipulation by users who are not its makers. Only then can we gauge the difference or similarity between the production of the image and the secondary production hidden in the process of its utiliEationJ ,.GB1) p.(iii-. <.3=

!eading performance art through practice ,or reading practice theory through performance art- we render both birds$ and worms$ views of a given conte(t. Through pra(is) we gain the possibility of performance as lived scenario+ actuali in! e(perimental and alternative cultural modes. @hen we postulate alternative ontologies through their hypothetical engagement) we find ourselves resolutely within their conte(ts. <.5= Salle C occurs within a growing history of performance*based work) variously beginning with the :uturist and ada artists) gaining momentum through .G5&s 2ituationist) :4UOU2) and conceptual artists. Pet) as media) performance has
A %&&B :C2 http:DDwww.qualitative*research.netDfqsD

FQS G,%-) #rt. /1) 2arah Butler: 0erformance) #rt and "thnography

consistently ,perhaps by definition- resisted definition. !ose4ee 7O4 B"!7) historian and director of ?ew Pork$s 0"!:O!M# festival notes: Jperformance art has been a medium that challenges and violates borders between disciplines and genders) between public and private) and between everyday life and art) and that follows no rulesJ ,7O4 B"!7) .GGB) p.%&-. #s pioneer contemporary perfor* mance artist #drian 080"! e(plains: J8t seems that abandoning discreet forms is) for me) the only way of preserving the idea within the reality of art*making activityJ ,.G'&) p.1B-. :ollowing trends echoed in other post*industrial disciplines we might read these statements as evidence of the increasing mediation between individ* uals+both a critique of the rigid scriptedness of the everyday) and a grateful absorption of thing*determined sub9ectivities+harnessing the capacities of our designed environments to construct our very humanness , 84?OT) %&&3-. <.'= "nveloped within a conte(t created by the noise and movement of electronic and documentary works+the whirring) clicking and grinding of 0eter 6OU!T"M#?6>"$s Preyin! "nsect #o$ots; 4iv 2T!#? $s amplified and swooshing Pipeline% Salle C is a central element of the Start e(hibition. Two works by #drian 080"!: Seriation &'( Lecture% and Seriation &)( *o+% both .G5B) inter9ect repetitive) rhythmic recantations of the time through which BOU !"#U is ,or) was- pro9ected. 7uest curator of the two*part Start,Stop e(hibition) 6hristof M87O?" describes BOU !"#U fi(ed in a Jperpetual present)J as she Jstages her continuous presence through every hour of the e(hibition run ... a persistent viewer of her own pro9ectionJ ,%&&') http:DDellengallery.concordia.caD%&&5DenDe(positionsQstart.php-. <.B= 8n interview) BOU !"#U e(plains the ob9ect of Salle C was to e(ert as neutral a presence as possible) allowing the conte(t of the e(hibition to do the rest. 2uper* ficially passive) her actual) active construction of the environment highlighted the capacity of the gallery to author reality) writing according to the anticipated social codes of the time and place. BOU !"#U$s role activated and underscored this sub9ective faculty. This e(plains her choice of banal) popular imagery+the lion* crested label on the back of her 9eans becoming an absurdist inde( of her presence. #s she states: -e mets les forces en presence puis en suite .e me retiens ,BOU !"#U) personal communication) Iuly %5) %&&'-+striving with the simplest constraints towards the magnification of micro*events. <.G=

. !it"ating #eactions
>ere) through the benefit of notes and interviews) 8 describe a variety of reactions to Salle C% revealing a sharp contrast between independent and guide*led e(periences. <%&= 7enerally) although Salle C was not conceived as an interactive work) visitors tried to break BOU !"#U$s silence) repeatedly interrupting the camera angle to leave traces of their own presence. BOU !"#U recounts intimidating scenarios of J9eu de pouvoirJ attempts to reverse visitorDcreator roles. 2everal violently demanded her attention) while others stayed in !oom 6 for e(tended periods+up to two hours+in one case applauding when she moved to replace the mini* F.
A %&&B :C2 http:DDwww.qualitative*research.netDfqsD

FQS G,%-) #rt. /1) 2arah Butler: 0erformance) #rt and "thnography

?ear the end of the e(hibition a visitor sat quite near to BOU !"#U for 13 minutes) making hand*signals and placing ob9ects) like a keychain) before the camera. <%.= 8 could postulate a range of motivations for these reactions as broad and as various as the number of visitors. 8n their search for meaning) many interpreted Salle C like the changing of the guards in 4ondon. "ngaging the installation as a game) the ob9ect became to break BOU !"#U$s silence and concentration. 8mplicit in these interpretations is a critique of and resistance to the very white cube protocols the conte(t of Salle C would underline. :or visitors versed in the history of avant*garde e(periment and the discourses of contemporary art) the gallery is already an opportunity for critique) play and bending boundaries. <%%= "(pectations of engagement perhaps also reflect the increased use of interactivity in museums and e(hibitions. Museum etiquette is consistently in flu() now) in relation to the e(perience economy) we might also look to the incorporation of consumer narratives in advertising. 8n Start% Toronto*based artist Marla >4# P$s mildly interactive set of cocktail shakers) /ixer ,%&&3*'-) which needed to be picked up to be turned on) may also have influenced visitors$ assumptions when entering Salle C. <%/= :eminist critiques of social construction of women as passive aesthetic ob9ects of contemplation might also have been embedded in visitors$ upset at BOU !"#U$s silence. #fter generations of work to breathe life into the gallery and to liberate the human form from static statuesqueness) it may very well be considered outrageous to appropriate a mute and unmoving stance. <%1= #fter all) human presence alone might have been enough to suggest interaction. #s e(plored by 0eggy 0>"4#? in 0nmarked:
JThe relationship between self and other is a marked one) which is to say it is unequal. 8t is alluring and violent because it touches the parado(ical nature of psychic desire; the always already unequal encounter nonetheless summons the hope of reciprocity and equality; the failure of this hope then produces violence) aggressivity) dissentJ ,.GG%) p.1-. <%3=

$. %eading #eactions
8 should divulge it was as a gallery guide that 8 had the opportunity to revisit Salle C several times each week) always with a different visitor or group of visitors in tow. @hen accompanied by me as their guide) visitor$s reactions were markedly less aggressive. Cuick to offer their evaluations and commentary regarding the screen pro9ections when 8 suggested they were recorded in real*time) having traversed the representational boundary to be situated with the living artist most were hushed to a whisper) asking) J@hat am 8 supposed to doHJ 8 like to imagine how widely reactions would differ across cultural and historical boundaries. <%5=

A %&&B :C2 http:DDwww.qualitative*research.netDfqsD

FQS G,%-) #rt. /1) 2arah Butler: 0erformance) #rt and "thnography

:rom the ensuing conversations 8 interpreted visitors$ shock at BOU !"#U$s presence as though indicating a conceptual leap from abstract notions of duration) to more tangible appreciation for the actuality of time. 8n realiEing the e(panse encapsulated by Salle C) many echoed my own initial process) calculating all they needed to accomplish in the ensuing hours) sometimes recounting their task lists. >owever) this shock may also reflect some embarrassment at offering so direct and straightforward a commentary of the piece within hearing range of the artist. This hesitancy to speak about BOU !"#U reflects her heightened status as the artist) and shows a resistance to speaking frankly about someone who is within hearing. <%'= 6oncluding there was nothing to Jdo)J visitors questioned the artist$s very humanness) asking: J8s she realHJ This) 8 would ascribe BOU !"#U$s silent stillness) especially 9u(taposed by visitors$ haste in moving through the gallery) or to assumptions springing from the conte(t of Salle C. ,8 should note that 6oncordia staff and students had been recently drawn into the gallery by #lain B"?O8T$s %&&% 1talon) an e(tremely lifelike urethane cast of his model$s body. This too) may have influenced visitors$ remarks.- <%B= 8n an isolated case) a large) unscheduled group of grade*school students flooded Salle C. 8rrespective of any gallery*inscribed protocols) they laughed and 9ostled their way between the living and pro9ected image of the artist. >aving discovered the relationship between the camera and screen) the installation became an opportunity for pro9ecting their own funny*faces. Their e(hausted chaperons gave rein to the group) neglecting to convey even the title of the piece. 8n an attempt to somehow order the e(perience) 8 posed leading questions to which some children shouted possible titles and the location of the artist. :or my part) 8 was delighted to see them en9oying the work in so various) dynamic and e(citing capacities. They chased and mimicked each other$s interpretations) not in search of the Jcorrect)J but the most fun answer. 8n this case) 8 would suggest these children were either blissfully ignorant of social constraints) or) indeed) were rebelling against codes of decorum they had discussed with their chaperons. <%G= >ighlighting the intent against intent as an essential tension in the piece) BOU !"#U describes her upset with this chaotic disrespect for Salle C. espite these and other frustrated searches for more apparent reciprocity BOU !"#U was always present to visitors. @hile hers was not an overtly interactive work) it is important to remember Salle C recorded visitors$ aural contributions. @ith respect to the artist 8 quote BOU !"#U at length:
JMalgrR tout) et outrR leurs dRplacements) les spectateurs ont investi Salle C de leur parole. 0ar leurs reactions spontanRes) les discussions qu$ils menaient entre eu() leurs tentatives de m$adresser la parole et parfois leurs monologues S mon endroit) ils on manifestR leur participation S Salle C) on fait entendre leurs voi(. 0lusieurs d$entre eu( m$ont dit ce qu$ils ressentaient dans l$installation) une femme qui parlait fort m$a dit sa surprise de constater que 9$Rtais l$artiste de la piLce et que 9$Rtais lS tous les 9ours. "lle m$a communiquR son admiration devant ma persRvRrance. Une autre femme) plus aggressive) s$est placRe directement devant moi et m$a demandR)
A %&&B :C2 http:DDwww.qualitative*research.netDfqsD

FQS G,%-) #rt. /1) 2arah Butler: 0erformance) #rt and "thnography

presqu$en criant) de parler) voulant briser mon silence. Un 9eune homme s$est assis par terre et m$a parlR pendant plus de vingt minutes de son e(perience) me posant des questions sur la piLce) cherchant S savoir qui 9$Rtais) me confiant son dRsir de me brusquer) de me faire rRagir. Un professeur et deu( de ses Rtudiants ont menR) longuement) une discussion sur leur vision de la piLce et sur les questions qu$elle soulevaient. "n rRalitR) 9e recevais quotidiennement la parole du spectateur. "t cette parole) elle est audible dans la sequence qui rRsulte de la performance et insLre S meme le corps de l$Tuvre) l$Rtat de sa reception) un propos) voire un discours) sur sa nature. #insi) Salle C gRnLre un propos sur Salle C) et le rRcupLre pour produire Salle CJ ,%&&') p.1-. </&=

8n this e(cerpt from her pro9ect$s thesis BOU !"#U describes that despite appearances she was always attentive to visitors+she was in fact recording them. 8 paraphrase: "n reality% " received the voices of spectators daily2 This dialo!ue% also audi$le in the resultin! video of the performance and +hich inserts itself over the +ork% is its o+n proposal to+ards the reception of the piece. BOU !"#U$s reflections on the work e(emplify current e(periments combining performance) art and ethnography. :ar from passive or inert) she designed the entire e(perience: reverting the camera after visitors$ ad9ustments) and noting each passing hour on the Fs within the case. @hile we might see her tethered to media) she is nonetheless master of her own means of production. </.= #mid this variety of reactions and the day*to*day presences of gallery staff) BOU !"#U remained unflinchingly consistent. To me) a student and gallery employee) her presence became surreal in its unchanging repetition. This static reality undermined superficial distinctions across days. 8t emphasiEed the e(panse of time encapsulated in those weeks) in one respect mocking those of us racing back and forth through the university atrium) and in another) standing for our efficient run of the institution. </%= #t base) the installation provokes investigation into social roles at the ephemeral level of the everyday) as well as a philosophical interrogation of being and self. @ho am 8 in the conte(t of the gallery) based on my unique and personal historyH #nd how do 8 reconstruct that self) using elements provided by the artist and in a field of contorted social e(pectationH >ere) BOU !"#U$s performance subverts the boundary between image and reality) reconnecting what 0>"4#? describes as the real Jread through representation) and representation ... read through the realJ ,0>"4#?) .GG%) p.%-. 2hock and emotion inspired by Salle C and emergent in visitors$ reluctance to connect image and author reveal how she could become reified as an inde( of presence) rather than actual presence. The monumental scale of the filmed representation and its striking familiarity were perceived as profound indications of the real. 8n turn) her actual presence was critiqued for being unresponsive) or it was mistaken for an inanimate sculptural representation. JBy e(posing <this= blind spot ... it may be possible to construct a way of knowing which does not take surveillance of the ob9ect) visible or otherwise) as its chief aimJ ,0>"4#?) .GG%) pp..*%-. <//=

A %&&B :C2 http:DDwww.qualitative*research.netDfqsD

FQS G,%-) #rt. /1) 2arah Butler: 0erformance) #rt and "thnography

&. Concl"sion
0erformance art draws us) by definition) to those evanescent and inaccessible realms: the psychic) the sub9ective) pro(imal) emotional) and intuited. >uman interaction) although occupying a range of tone+in some cases overt and dra* matic) while in others subtle and removed+is always potentially revelatory. </1= @here concerns performance art) ethnography is a viable method for conte(t*rich interpretation. Borrowing discourses from the social sciences we theoriEe the gallery as a site primed for cultural critique and commentary. </3= #lthough perhaps drawing distinct publics already versed in contemporary art or art history) the gallery can contribute a great deal to our understanding of our selves and of each other. 8n this sense) the fine arts contribute as much to social science) as social sciences to art. </5= 8t is important to note that this approach invests a great deal of agency in visitors and staff) shifting creative authority from the sole direction of artistic genius to potential networks of communities and institutions. 8t is perhaps ironic) then) that while my reading of Salle C emphasiEes a variety of tactical interpretations) 8 need to maintain the artist$s intentions as my primary responsibility) if 8$m to remember the role of larger concrete structures and their histories in shaping these micro*events. </'= :rom this point we need to question if the art world can or) indeed) whether it should provide a large enough sample for analysis. @e must continually recogniEe and describe the characteristics determining a field. >ere) 8 hope to have illustrated Salle C as an essentially cosmopolitan) academic space) where the artist$s presence engaged) accentuated) and provided some record of the social prescriptions associated with the fine art gallery. </B= 8n all cases) Olivia BOU !"#U$s performanceDinstallation work inspires an uncertainty worthy of further investigation. </G=

Ac'nowledgments
8 thank anthropologist Ma(imilian 6. :O!T") for accepting e(perimental ethnography; curator and director of the 4eonard and Bina "llen #rt 7allery MichLle T>M!8#U4T) for unflinching dedication to contemporary art in Montreal; and 0arsons 0rofessor 6live 84?OT for inspiring discussions. Thanks also to ?ew 2chool 6ontemporary #rt 6ollection curators 2ivlia !O668O4O and "ric 2T#!N) and 6ooper*>ewitt) ?ational esign Museum professor "than !OB"P) for important resources and recommendations.

A %&&B :C2 http:DDwww.qualitative*research.netDfqsD

FQS G,%-) #rt. /1) 2arah Butler: 0erformance) #rt and "thnography

#eferences
Boudreau) Olivia ,%&&'-. #apport de sta!e( Compte #endu de la performance Salle C. Montreal ,unpublished-. 6onquergood) wight ,.GG.-. !ethinking ethnography: Towards a critical cultural politics. Communication /ono!raphs) 34) .'G*.G1. 6onquergood) wight ,.GG3-. Of caravans and carnivals: 0erformance studies in motion. T5#) 67,1-) ./'*.1.. e6erteau) Michel ,.GB1-. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of 6alifornia 0ress. ilnot) 6live ,%&&3-. J"thicsH esignHJ 8n 2tanley Tigerman ,"d.-) The 8rche+orks Papers) Fol. .) ?umber %) ,pp..3*3/-. 6hicago: #rcheworks. 7oldberg) !ose4ee ,.GGB-. Performance( Live art since the 9:s. ?ew Pork: Thames U >udson. 7oodall) ,Bud- >. 4loyd) Ir. ,%&&&-. The future of new ethnographic writing. 8n >. 4loyd ,Bud7oodall) ;ritin! the *e+ Ethno!raphy ,pp..'3*%..-. 4ondon: #ltaMira 0ress. Migone) 6hristof ,%&&'-. Start) http:DDellengallery.concordia.caD%&&5DenDe(positionsQstart.php < ate of access: Iuly %/) %&&'=. 0helan) 0eggy ,.GG%-. 0nmarked( The politics of performance. ?ew Pork: !outledge. 0iper) #drian ,.G'&-. Talkin! to myself( The on!oin! auto$io!raphy of an art o$.ect. Bari) 8talia: Marilena Bonomo.

A"thor
Sarah B0TLE# is a masters fellow and curatorial assistant at the 6ooper*>ewitt) ?ational esign Museum in ?ew Pork) where she pursues their 9oint design history program with 0arsons) The ?ew 2chool for esign. 2he holds a Bachelor of #rts in 6ultural #nthropology and a 7raduate 6ertificate in 6omputation and esign #rts from 6oncordia University in Montreal) Cuebec. >er work engages the generative relationships between cultures and designed environments) with a special interest in public art and display culture. 6ontact: 2arah Butler M.#. >istory of ecorative #rts and esign 6ooper*>ewitt) ?ational esign Museum and 0arsons) The ?ew 2chool for esign ?ew Pork) ?P .&.%B*&55G) U2# Tel.: V. /1' %// ..53 "*mail: butls.&5Wnewschool.edu) te(tbutlerWgmail.com U!4: http:DDwordbutler.wordpress.comD

Citation
Butler) 2arah ,%&&B-. 0erformance) #rt and "thnography </G paragraphs=. Forum Qualitative So ialforschun! , Forum( Qualitative Social #esearch) 7,%-) #rt. /1) http:DDnbn* resolving.deDurn:nbn:de:&..1*fqs&B&%/15. !evised 5D%&&B

A %&&B :C2 http:DDwww.qualitative*research.netDfqsD