It's not a dangerous art - crime only in a socially dangerous way. Sad to know that some people need sacrifices to understand that.
1
While I do get this artist's point, it seems to me that finding a way to survive in the world while remaining within the boundaries of one's culture and system of government takes more courage and creativity than living outside of those boundaries. Sure, must be wonderfully liberating to not have to pay rent or a mortgage, worry about weekly trips to the grocery store, pay utility bills (or ANY bills) etc. But the minute you start to live that way, you become a parasite on the rest of society because you now depend on others' goodwill or good fortune for your food and shelter. Squatting in someone else's property to put a roof over your head, thereby precluding the owner from using that property, is selfish and arrogant. Eating out of the garbage or expecting handouts is dangerous and self-centered, respectively. If all of society had no rules or regulations, and we all lived like this guy, there'd be complete anarchy, and that is not a world I want to live in. The real challenge is surviving while respecting the boundaries of others, and finding a way to do it while remaining authentic to one's self.
2
The following was submitted around 1:30pm on Sunday. Surely the NYT can stand a little criticism.
Why is the NYT publicizing this grotesqueness?
Exalting self mutilation is madness.
The mere act of your unnecessary coverage expands this lunatic platform.
4
The whole style of this business reminds me of Russian nihilists and anarchists in the late 19th Century, many of whom ended up in Paris at one time or another. They also lived the seedy bohemian lives of emigres, but with propaganda, plotting, bombs, and Okrana spies. I'm sure that the spy part is still going on, but I can't imagine Mr. Pavlensky involved in a plot more complicated than buying a can of gasoline and starting a fire with it.
1
Wow,still angry with his Mother.
6
As far as I can see, one of the least appealing and constructive ways to make a name for yourself.
3
One might say that Pavlensky could make his point through a film of burning a bank. it would be a challenge for him to try and elicit a similar emotional response but a very good filmmaker could come close. In a sense he did take the easy way out.
Art can be anything but not everything should be tolerated because it is viewed as art. art can be a protest, satire or message. The freedom to create art should be similar to one's freedom of speech. Art should not be censored except when it causes harm. Art's benefits need not be justified in order to allow its existence but when art causes harm or seeks to cause harm it justifies its removal.
Just where that tipping point lies between art that is harmful and art that is benign, is up for debate but in my opinion Pavlensky has crossed the line.
Imagine what it would be like if there were not rules and everyone got to do whatever they pleased. Keep in mind that if YOU get to do whatever you please the I, also, get to do whatever I please. And, of course, it will be just to bad for you if you don't like what I choose to do.
1
Art? I have had many in-depth conversations with people in the art world about the definition of the term and have concluded that there is no succinct answer that is generally agreed upon. but gauging from the majority of responses here, EVERYTHING is art. Sorry, I don't buy it. Self-mutilation is the product of a sick mind seeking attention. By this everything-is-art definition, Donald Trump is likely the greatest artist of our time.
2
Don't know what to say about this guy. Giving new definition to what is edgy art? He seems prone to a sledge hammer approach, not much space for nuance or subtlety. But he's staying consistent and willing to pay his heavy price. Sorry about his family but look at Gauguin.
2
Pavlensky's inspiration must have been The Joker from the film The Dark Knight. The great majority do not share his perverse anarchist views, yet he feels those views must be imposed upon the world "by any means necessary". Also notice that he fled to a western nation which protects personal freedoms in order to continue his protests rather than risk the wrath of truly oppressive authorities back in his homeland.
4
I am awed by people of such strong conviction. He makes the violence visible. Too much happens out of sight and therefore out of mind.
1
I like John Gardner’s take on art, how “to worship the unique, the unaccountable and freaky, is—if we’re consistent—to give up the right to say to our children, ‘Be good.’” True art is moral art, which “affirms life.” Pavlensky’s “actions,” despite their righteous orientation against power and oppression, seem only to affirm his own self-destructive delusions. I find the writer’s interpretation of his “art” as Christlike amusing; Christ’s suffering championed compassion, mercy, forgiveness and the meek, true freedom from earthly power knowing its transience. Pavlensky, in acknowledging it, exalts it knowing no other god than that of brawn.
“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
1
" ... blurred the lines among art, protest and crime."
Come on. This is America's flagship paper. Typos seem to be commonplace these days (thank you, spellcheck programs), but bad grammar is inexcusable. This should read:
... blurred the lines between art, protest and crime.
You're welcome.
2
@GFE
What? "Among" is correct there.
Can he draw?
1
Political activism and masochistic posturing are one thing, art another. How dare this unstable, untalented person present himself as an artist.
Art should speak to you. And if you’re a masochist or a vandal, this art is absolutely shouting at you.
1
The early Norwegian death metal bands (such as Mayhem) were even "better" artists: murders, mutilation, burned churches.
lock him up before he hurts a human being. it's too bad he doesn't have an angel to step in and call him a tortured artist and genius as in pollack.
What's Russian for "white privilege". Arson as art ? Really ? Wow
1
Sad twit who did not get enough attention at school.
1
His acts of physical mutilation disgust me. And I can’t look away. Brilliant. Wouldn’t you say? Glad the NYTimes is not afraid to make us uncomfortable.
2
Fascinating.
1
This man is obviously insane and the press should not give him more infamy by publishing his acts of violence. They are not art. They are mental disturbances. He should be institutionalized before his "art" kills someone.
1
Lip sowing and scrotum nailing is kind of old hat in the art world,
and living as a guest in some rich persons house is hardly freedom. Unless of course being an exotic animal in a private zoo is your idea of freedom.
2
As a fellow artist, I agree with many of Pavlensky's anti-establishment ideals. While many of his images are very powerful, he himself strikes me as a lazy self-absorbed jerk who thinks nothing of destroying private property and stealing. I'm glad to see that his girlfriend finally left him. Hopefully, she will finally give those kids the safe and stable environment they need so they don't grow up to be as screwed up as their father. Sounds like Pavlensky has tossed his "principles" aside and found a rich sugarmama to take care of him.
Now that the New York Times has rewarded this creep with the kind of notoriety that every artist craves who knows what fame awaits this bad boy. Crime pays I guess.
2
I'm not so sure this is art. Self mutilation is not new to mankind. I myself have witnessed the Sun Dance ceremony of the Lakota Sioux where mutilation is seen as a sacrifice for the tribe to thrive and as a pathway to a better understanding of the spiritual paradox of the human condition. Certainly his "art" is a caricature of the reality of the world he is portraying.
More power to him 💪 and his partner and those who are willing to point out the inherent Injustice of power. However I lack the artistic talent to nail my scrotum to anything.
When in the heart of Putin's Russia Pavlensky nailed his testicles to Red Square, and when later he torched the door of the infamous Lubyanka building, he was holding a mirror up to Russian authoritarianism, forcing the state and its people to look at a face -- their own -- that they did not want to see. In these two cases, and others, he was dealt with surprisingly leniently: no punishment for the Red Square action and seven months in a mental hospital awaiting trial for the second, whereupon he was fined 500,000 rubles (which he did not pay). Then he was allowed to leave the country.
Perhaps in allowing him to leave the Putin government was merely ridding itself of an annoyance it didn't know how to deal with. Or perhaps it was saying, "Go ahead, Pavlensky, try this stuff a few kilometers west of here, see where it gets you." And indeed he did see: he has been dealt with in France petty much as he was in Russia.
As far as I'm concerned Petr Pavlensky is the artist par excellence. He leaves us no alternative but to see and hear him, and to benefit by doing so.
“Everything in my art is done to make people think. It’s not enough just to have your own individual freedom; you need to help others free themselves.”
1
Powerful pieces, but I understand his partner's decision to get away from him.
1
A remarkable man, and "pretty tough" to be sure. But he won't live to be 50. Whether he even reaches 40 seems doubtful.
These comments are pretty funny. I don’t care much for performance art or conceptual art, but I don’t deny that it’s art. Music, dance, etc are heavily based on performance, after all. Then the guy may not be a good father, but that’s hardly a fair criticism of him as an artist. To say that he’s an attention seeking narcissist is strange. For one, all artists are narcissists to at least some degree, otherwise why would they bother presenting their works indifferent public? And how can he be attention seeking? He doesn’t seem to promote himself, he makes no money from his work it seems, and I highly doubt he reached out to the New York Times asking them to do a profile of him.
Again, I’m not interested in this kind of art, but it’s fascinating to see how worked up people get over it.
5
@Craig
Perhaps trying to be a decent parent could also be thought of as performance art. For the truly avante-garde ...
1
Reminds of the latest season of Documentary Now where Cate Blanchett plays a Hungarian performance artist. Hilarious.
I think the photo of him surrounded by fire is cool although damaging public property is not. The photo is art but the act is vandalism.
I think in reality he’s a cleverly disguised sociopath who uses “art” as a means of displaying the most anti-social behavior and getting away with it. We all know how easily duped the art world is.
Steel bunny anyone?
7
Yes, most of us understand that "art" today is anything a person feels the need to express. That of course doesn't mean its most peoples cup of tea.
But if you really want to change the world, I believe you have to have the insight that the world will only ever really change when untold millions change what's in their hearts.
Through a desire to do so, and the self effort and discipline required.
He may think millions will somehow look in the mirror and change their nature as a result of his acts of self mutilation and property destruction, but I doubt it.
I'll take beautiful, uplifting art myself. To each their own of course, but something seems nightmarishly off here.
2
Pick up a guitar and write a song. More people will respond to art if it stirs their soul thru music. Imagine?
3
Is there such an artist whose work (or "actions") are delivered with such force and bravery-to-the-point-of-stupidity that could arrest our American attention span?
I hope I’m not going to have to look at that photo in Top Stories for the next week. Ick.
4
Destructive self harming idiocy. If the artist is actually concerned about political issues then I suggest he join a political movement, and seek to pursuade others to join him. This kind of "provocation" is at worst simply self-promotion, and at best self-flagellation aimed at appealing to the non-existent conscience of the rulers.
10
"His spectacular acts of self-mutilation..."
That description, and the image of his mouth sewn shut...
perhaps those lines that are described as blurry, among art, protest, and crime... ought to include insanity.
11
Ugh, thanks alot for putting that picture up with the headline... I'll be trying to un-see it all day!
2
It is forgivable for a novice to confuse "art" for attention seeking but I didn't think that the NYT would fail to see the difference.
8
Art, of course, cannot merely comfort but must provoke people to think. Unsettling as this is, it must be the case that artists may transgress real boundaries, even with unpredictable results, in order to transgress or question the far more unsettling imaginary ones, more so since what they indicate and how far they suggest going will be uncertain. Welcome to a world of danger.
Every kind of governance will defend against some dangers. Against all? A society that pretended to that would only be one with imaginary comfort zones, said to extend everywhere and in fact defending the powerful against the risks they most fear, with a fury reserved for what, in an only seeming paradox, may be an increasing number of mental patients and criminals punished for dubious transgressions against a morality or normality that partly exist only because of such borders and exclusions.
It troubles me thinking that Pavlensky may be right and I, a mere writer who likes tranquility, lack courage. It troubles me, too, thinking that what he does has reason and meaning because the world we live is that awful. I feel like I owe it to him and others, like Pussy Riot, to have a troubled sleep and admit that I do and we should.
The political problem he points to, involving pain and damage, and systems of law and order that are mainly just protective, will endure so long as we have societies for the few and against the many. The ills he suffers willingly, many endure by force.
2
I am not impressed.
13
Bravo Bravo! Bra-Vo!
Seems to me to be the real deal, and the basis of a great teacher for young people interested in confronting the troubles of this world without resorting to the junk avenues of pop culture, the Internet, or politics.
2
Oh, please, he’s not a genius. He’s an arsonist.
16
This is really precious, really precious
Bad dad - fathers 2 kids and abandons them in acts that only global art elites and NYtimes readers will get who are on his side
Does stupid things, arson, and get thrown in jail
The hunger strike is especially strident, especially given this does not deserve to go in the pantheon of others that have done so while in jail
More impact would come from a good Netflix doc
save your scarred narcissistic body
14
This front page article is an example of how the NYTimes is out of touch with the general public. It is obvious to most of us (I believe Hilary called us the "deplorables") that this artist is simply a mental patient. No explanations or analysis is possible or necessary. There is nothing to see or discuss here. This article is the modern version of visiting insane asylums for the purpose of entertainment. Only today, the sophisticated readers of NYTimes call it art!
9
Another selfish male artist with no consideration of his children. That kind of self focus can make for great art but it’s a moral failing.
14
Guy comports with narcissistic personality disorder perfectly. He's like central casting's NPD patient and a screwball comedy of an artist to boot. Lucky France to have him ;-)
11
Imagine
If more good people were so passionate about political justice and freedom, and acted upon it in this way.
We just might see real change in our lifetimes.
We need more of this, not less.
The line between vandalism and protest is thin, and must be crossed occasionally to get the attention of the powers that be.
The status quo just isn't just, and you know what they say happens when there is no justice.
72
@JLC More of it would be GULAG etc.
A total lack of consideration for what others think of them, or their work, is the hallmark of every great artist. There is only one person's opinion that really matters - their own. A condition for which I have the deepest and utmost respect.
49
@Chicago Guy
'A total lack of consideration for what others think of them, or their work, is the hallmark of every great artist.'
I see that in my friends' children's artwork.
25
@Chicago Guy
Beautifully put. All good art is an exploration. Society commodifies and puts value on it. The art itself is merely the footprint of the explorer.
14
@Chicago Guy. Then, despite what you say above, you must respect Donald Trump as a great performance artist.
15
I wonder if he finds it slightly ironic that, as much as he seems to pity and dismiss his parents’ dependence on the state and on the trivialities of a comfortable existence, he too depends on the state (albeit as an antagonist) and the rigid conformity to his nonsensical, trivial non-conformity. His acts of protest are nearly as routine as his father’s job - actions that are heavily scripted within our societies: the protestor.
The telltale sign of the emptiness of his work is that he judges his actions using the measures of the state (currency, damage, inconvenience, annoyance) and requires the apparatus of the existing system (the media, the courts) for his theater. It lays plain that the only apparent purpose for his work is to antagonize, to be noticed, be recorded, and then to be acclaimed. Not to change. Not to serve anyone other than himself.
Evidently his new relationship will afford him the vacation his mother so badly wanted him to have. And he only has a few words of regret - but is still willing to take it.
104
@Lars: I disagree. His current love interest aside, it's clear that his prior actions were directed at the tyranny inherent in everyday life. Of course his actions, to have meaning, require "the apparatus of the existing system" -- one person by himself can't challenge the current system in any other way. In my view, the extremes to which he has gone, in terms of sacrificing his freedom and even his own flesh and blood, reveal integrity and not mere showmanship.
At the time of Pussy Riot's arrest and trial, I published two short essays in "Liberty" supporting the Grrrls. That was better than doing nothing, I suppose, but it required neither courage nor the sacrifice of anything other than a bit of my time.
I see Pavlensky as very much in the anarchist tradition. But whereas anarchism in the 19th and 20th centuries was reflexive, misguided, and ultimately futile, I think Pavlensky may have touched a societal nerve. And he's done so without killing anybody (except, ultimately perhaps, himself).
3
@Lars Thank you. Yes, it always seems to be about 'Look at me'.
1
@Lars You nailed it. The hypocrisies are many. The least of which is his willingness to risk orphaning his children for the good of all.
And it's cool to use the oppressor state's currency as long as you are not personally transacting to get it or if you are buying vodka shots.
And glorying in giving inspiration to lighting up some corner newspaper stands to start the revolution or teach people about freedom or something.
I think his wife has the right idea. Flee this fellow.
1
This was a wonderful article and I wish Pyotr and Oksana the light and joy they seek. These are two examples of people truly living free in one sense of the word. While they seem like good people there is clearly a lot of pain underscoring their actions but I support their message. We don't need to be self mutilatory like them but we should all adopt a stance of radical bravery like them. We are simultaneously more free and more stifled than ever before in human existence. Radical bravery like theirs will be important to curing society of what ails it. This is what freedom looks like.
68
Stirring acts -- a courageous, imaginative human being. If more people would carefully consider why they do things or do not do things, where they fit into the social matrix, and then act accordingly -- i.e. in the manner of Pavlensky, although not necessarily arriving at his particular solutions -- we'd all be better off.
74
When you are over 60, it seems that what constitutes art, in this day, and age, is little more than those who have an insatiable need for attention. We have a President like that, and how is that working out for us?
120
@MaryKayKlassen Maybe you need to keep a fresher perspective on what's going on in the world.
2
@MaryKayKlassen As a fellow Minnesotan (Klassen's comment stood out to me for this reason) and an artist, I defend her take on Pavlenky's work, even if I don't quite share it. I feel the same about the well-worded response from Lars (of Munich). I do think there's a fundamental irony in the strain of self-effacing/imperiling protest art Pavlensky practices. The image of him – suffering in some way, by various means and hands – is key. (The 'tragedy' of having a girlfriend in the 16th arrondissement is harder to see, but life's complicated.) There's a self-service to the work, then; except that in the immolating figure, others can be found. Whether artists or spectators (or commenters), we can spot vanity in the public figure/voice, more easily now than ever (if there's any silver-lining to DT, its his mirror), but however elusive the selfless expression, looking for it is worthwhile. Glimpsing it is everything.
I am not brave enough to be this guy, but I am very pleased to know he exists.
106
interesting that he is making art with no intention of showing it in a gallery or museum, and those who don't approve of it say it doesn't belong in a gallery or museum.
Pavlensky is, without a doubt, one of the greatest living artists of our time. His rejection of aspirational, art world, petit bourgeoisie culture is actuated in his work and life, neither of which are separate entities. He's disruptive. His oeuvre counters power at every juncture, state, capital, church. He is a living artist, living art.
2
@Tony Robert Cochran
"His oeuvre counters power at every juncture, state, capital, church."
But so does every common criminal.
Sorry, no. No respect for simply setting things on fire, or for failing to give his children any safety or security.
And no respect for self-mutilation: that's barbaric. I feel really sorry for these kids, with parents who routinely chop off their own body parts.
3
What a striking piece for a striking man -- it's clear that the writer is fascinated by him. In Russia, it seemed that he was doing what it took to be heard in a totalitarian, pervasively corrupt society. But continuing to do so in France, burning a building, seems to indicate that this is just what he wants to do because he needs / wants to, not to mention being terribly ungrateful as France took him in as an exile from Russia.
8
I enjoyed this piece tremendously. It reminded me of Bruce Sterling’s Holy Fire - excellent.
Sometimes the best decision is to not give coverage to certain people or events.
7
He can spout social-justice cliches all he wants, but when I look at those photos, and all I see is the guy's narcissism.
8
Living your truth is a big deal. But his mom is right - kids do need school and to go to the doctor and to have some stability in their lives.
3
“Self mutilation” is disturbing and a sign of a mental illness but as long as it remains limited to one’s own body it should not be criminalized but this “artist” incites others to do the same and engages in acts that expose others to danger. He belongs in a psychiatric hospital not a prison.
It’s not art! Just because it’s edgy or disturbing doesn’t make it art but I’m sure those who like to pose as sophisticates will say otherwise.
6
In Vancouver, sometime in the eighties, a performance artist killed Sniffy the rat with a concrete block on a downtown street corner. There was much controversy at the time about the limits and definition of art.
My opinion was and still is that endangering or taking life may be art, but should not be acceptable- protest or no. Interesting how closely Pavlensky approaches terrorism.
What Pavlensky does to himself is his business. Sniffy got no say in his own death. We should not allow that for others, human or beast.
4
I will never consider actions like Pavlensky's as art. Self mutilation and arson are signs of mental instability. That some would call it art is no surprise. People voted politicians like Trump and McConnell into office, too. Good, sound judgement matters.
7
Whether one considers this art or not (which I do) seems intimately linked with intention. I would love to believe that Trump's intention these last two years (and perhaps many before) has been to create social commentary on the fragility of reason and the seduction of complete narcissism. The bloviator could indeed redeem himself by letting us all in on the charade.
Society has those who have entrenched themselves, they have the monopoly of the world’s resources. All the destructive weapons that we have today are here only to protect that monopoly.
OK- his art communicates important messages. Who is going to do something positive, constructive?
3
While being so sure that he is doing the right thing to protest and point out evil done by states (Russia is guilty) he ignores the emotional toll this is taking on those two little children. Not to even mention their lives is selfishness on his part, no matter what. Their innocence is ruined forever and he should never have any more children.
3
Intriguing how humans process their grief and their anger.
Some of this self mutilation reminds me of the monk who set himself on fire. Women who willingly would go to Sati in India still. The idea is the same... the ultimate sacrifice, hurting yourself in the name of "whatever" you believe in or want attention directed towards... but this extremeness has a very profound purpose behind it.
The perpetrator of self-harm wants you to be witness and watch... and be uncomfortable.
It can turn people off completely...
or
it may provoke you to think why in Hades name is this man sitting naked in public cutting himself?
This kind of reactions can be also seen among people who are formed to conform to a dogma (which they abhor) a a child or young adult... what follows as an adult can be a lifelong scheme of defiance, in your face attitude.
Now, how much can be called 'art per se'... is very subjective in my (humble) opinion.
As a physician, and someone who has studied psychiatry and psychology, I feel pity for him... and for us, as a general species.
Odd... but pity is always the dominant emotion every time I have looked at Pavlensky and his (art) displays.
4
Correction:
"These kind of reactions can also be seen among people who are forced to conform to a dogma (which they abhor) as a child or young adult... and what follows when they become adults, is a lifelong scheme of defiance, in your face attitude."
3
I have been followed Pavlensky's work for years - at least what little one can find.
That any of us could be as brave in battling the powers that rule our world is nearly beyond comprehension.
One only hopes that he can make it to the US and burn our doors down too.
1
@G.S.Patch
No thanks. I hope he is denied a visa.
1
Jean Genet approves, probably G.G. Allin too. But at that point, the list does start to go right into the hearty of the nasty. I am ambivalent.
An intriguing comment on how someone -- several someones -- looks at the confluence of art, politics, violence, physical and self destruction, social statement, etc.
I get why several making Comments condemn the actions. But I'd be more apt to get riled up about oil company pollution, insurance grifters, chemical companies dumping waste into nearby waters, corrupt politicians, gun manufacturers and NRA folks promoting semi-automatic weapons....you get the idea. There's no art, no justification, no good about any of that.
And I can think of a couple prominent politicians whose lips sewn shut would be a public service for all of us.
4
In Soviet times, the goal of art was not fame, or art for the artist's sake, but to serve the common people. There was no need to stage grotesque stunts attracting attention due to the disgust they arouse. Is not this the Murdochization of art--the avant garde reduced to level of The Daily Mail and the New York Post? . . . . Contrast the great modernist Soviet poet Mayakovsky. Prior to 1917, he was an expert in shocking the bourgeoisie, in print and on stage. But he wrote his first poem while in a solitary prison cell as a teenage revolutionary against the Tsar. When the October Revolution took place, he practically personified it. His many brillian poems (& posters!) were extremely popular. At his death, more than 100,000 ordinary people came to mourn him. He was a real artist.
3
There is no art without risk. Some risk more than others when necessary. I think this article is full of bravery and commitment in a risk-averse society of cowards. Inspiring.
1
Why did the guy have to stand in the middle of the photo with the Banque de France burning? Bad artistic decision. He’s just screaming to be heard. Twitter is good for that, but Art needs more.
10
He’s a freak. The reason there’s been a rightward shift in politics in western society is because liberals have taken things too far. They expect us to have no standards for acceptable behavior. Just radical acceptance of anything and everything no matter how strange or weird it might be to most people. I was at Best Buy recently. This worker approached me and asked me if I needed any help. She was covered in tattoos and had a nose ring and all kinds of hardware sticking out of her face. When I was young, people couldn’t look like that at work. Anyway, I told her I didn’t need any help and I quit shopping at Best Buy.
2
@Mark America is a bad place right now for any discussion of standards and acceptable behavior.
1
Pavlensky's body is his to do with as he pleases. If he wants to mutilate it and call it art, that's his right. But, when he attempts to include property that is not his in his "actions" it is proper to draw the line. Setting a fire not only damages property, but could endanger other lives. He cannot be allowed to injure and possibly murder others for his "art." Let him chop off whatever body parts he chooses, slash and cut himself to pieces. But, he cannot be allowed to extend his destruction beyond himself and his own property.
7
@Ms.
Agree, except the children need to be taken away. You can't leave children in a house where people are chopping off body parts.
1
'Art' ? Sure, I guess. But in that case, what really isn't.
2
"Tragic love", doomed by contradiction", contradiction is the reality.
1
I for one am thankful that the "artists" among us are a very, very, very tiny minority.
2
Another candidate for an early grave. Really, this holds up a mirror to the prurience of the so-called "connoisseurs". It says more about them than about the "artist". Remember the one who had himself shot on stage? Or the one posthumously profiled in the New Yorker for his outrageous self-mutilations?
1
Self-mutilation, aka "performance art" is an act of total moral bankruptcy both by the artist and those who "appreciate" it.
5
As a matter of taste, i would rate Koons above Kinkade, and Pavlensky way above both...
1
Compare the work in question here to Goya. Go look at a Goya in person. Violence is present in a Goya, shocking, center stage, but it is repulsive, terrifying. We feel our mortality and that of our fellow humans when we look at a Goya. Goya compels us to stop this violence.
Now look at a Pavlensky. Lets set aside notions of “criminality.” This work of Pavlensky’s is a celebration of violence (with him center stage you may note). What separates his actions from, say, the teens who perpetrated Columbine? Degrees? Is the difference that people died at Columbine? Because aside from that, there is only slim separation. Those teens were defining a clear aesthetic language of reprisal.
Put another way, violence simply feeds the spectacle.
1
@Aaron Aside from that.
With sewn lips they can't make you talk. But can you laugh at their folly?
1
An utterly brilliant article about an unimaginably fascinating artist. It’s seems like he’s a tragic fool or prophet. Not sure what to make of all the half-measure efforts at amputation and mutilation. (I mean no one who’s serious about wrecking their manhood uses only one nail!) Anyway he definitely belongs in France, even if only as part of Putin’s great plan to harass the west.
The Russian artist may not care much for money, but the nytimes sure does and this piece will keep me and many other subscribers current on our culture dues clamoring for more great stories! Thanks!
1
His art in Russia was about protesting corruption and the lack of freedom of speech. But now that he's managed to immigrate to a free society, he needs to find a job. Instead, he's chosen to paint vandalism as art and is leeching off his host country. He and his wife seem to disdain the idea of working for a living or paying their own way. Maybe they should return to Russia to regain a bit of perspective.
4
I'm sure he'll stop to avoid further publicity.
1
People like Pavelensky, Shalygina and others involved in noting our internal contradictions help to keep this world both interesting and honest.
1
there are far better ways to get ones artistic views across then self mutilation and arson. this seems intellectually stunted in its execution.
7
It's one thing to self-mutilate, it's another to set someone else's property on fire.
Although I consider neither to be art, the man is entitled to de-lobe to his heart's content.
But if you deliberately set fire to someone's property, get ready for jail.
Or an asylum.
4
The term "art" is like the word "God". Totally subjective. Use however you wish.
Compare Pavlensky's work with that of Rembrandt. Huh?
2
Elevating this infantile and disturbing (not to mention desperately attention-seeking) behavior to "art", is, well, just mind-boggling. Make no mistake, none of Pavlensky's pathetic/sad "actions" are about art or activism, they are just pure narcissistic exhibitionism. Narcissists are empty vessels waiting to be filled with whatever fodder can be mustered - in Pavlensky's case with violent, selfish, destructive, thieving (the cottage in Paris!) acts. Serious activists study, work, write, make art, films, music, march, speak, scream, connect, appeal etc. While Pavlensky's followers glorify his hypocritical ways (revealing much about themselves) my thoughts go to his daughters who clearly were not his first priority when he was released from prison; they and "looking for a bar in which to celebrate" were top of his list. Heartbreaking.
5
reading this, i recognized the problem. it's not that institutions of power can be oppressive, but that art is no longer possible.
why is art no longer possible? because we now must be told what is, or is not, art, through marketing and critical analysis.
it's long been my hypothesis that stephen paddock committed mass murder as a concept piece -- a path to fame, a record to remain unbroken, an intricately planned and executed feat, whatever -- simply as that, instead of as a hate crime, a delirium, a retribution, an act of revolution.
the difference between pavlensky and paddock is -- what, exactly? that pavlensky hurts himself instead of others? that pavlensky wants to get arrested for prancing naked? lay out your thesis for me, i'm interested to know where you draw the line.
and there you have it. you're explaining it to me -- or, you're falling back on that old cliche, "whatever floats your boat," which sentiment has not made art impossible, just lowered it to craft fair esthetics.
this is where marketing and critical theory are necessary to raise art's lowered esthetics back up again. but once you have marketing involved, it can raise anything to any level -- and then the bottom falls out entirely.
art used to be about skill and intelligence. now it's all about marketing. and critical theory. and talk. lots and lots of talk.
@drollere
"that pavlensky hurts himself instead of others?"
That's not a distinction that holds up. If he keeps setting things on fire, it's only matter of time till he hurts or kills others.
Ah. Yet imagine what he could do in front of the White House, or at Nancy Pelosi's office to demonstrate the unexplainable fear Americans have now of their government and our future.
Pavlensky could move to New York City and produce his Art to his heart's content - and what a menu he would have - Open cruelty from the world's once adored nation and people. Just think how he might pose in a glass cell containing 500 Central American men who had not showered or eaten in days or weeks. It's a veritable smorgasbord of WHAT.
Come to New York, Pav - find a place to live in Soho, Harlem, or the East Village and become a multi-millionaire Pav!
His genius could be - not random murdering of children or people at random - as American youth seems to be terrifyingly pressed to do. Pav does not seem to need this release or death by police as do so many others. He might teach as well -"How to humiliate avarice 101"
Think about it Pav - there are at least 1,000 men in women in Manhattan that would house you and yours in comfort, compassion, and whichever style you prefer. Bravo for You and for the Now Great USA!
1
Fascinating article! Thank you.
2
Blech. Never heard of him, Don't want to know any more.
2
Maybe I'm hopelessly old fashioned, but I don't see that Pavlensky's performances have led to any social change yet.
20
@Martha Shelley
P.S. With regard to self-mutilation, I'm sure all readers are familiar with the inverted good-luck wish an actor gives another before going on stage: "Break a leg."
In martial arts we say: "Break the other guy's leg." Might be a better attitude if you do want to change the world.
2
Kind of what Jerry Springer and Dr. Phil do but with greater artistic, cultural and social importance.
3
The lively range of commentary above is proof that his art is effective.
8
Reading about Pyotr and Oksana, I immediately think of another performance artist, Ron Athey, who was very controversial and inspired as much simultaneous anger and support as it seems Pyotr does. I learned about his work when I was in art school in the early 90's. Reading accounts and seeing documentation immediately horrified and repelled me, but I found myself thinking about it after I went away from it. It was incredibly confrontational and I had to reflect on it for some time to think through my initial and visceral rejection. I don't necessarily "like" his work and I don't necessarily "like" Pyotr's either. That isn't the point. It's incredibly compelling and their total commitment to living as they do punches me in the gut. I think of Genesis and Jaqueline Breyer P'Orridge and their commitment to physical modification as performance. Chris Burden lying covered by a sheet in the middle of La Cienega. Ana Mendieta inviting viewers to a site specific piece, only to arrive upon a staged aftermath of a brutal rape. All of that work upsets me terribly, but I am glad all of those folks had the courage to create. Yes art should be beautiful, but that is also subjective. I sit in the Rothko Chapel often and feel overwhelmed because of the transcendent beauty. I have been reading a book called Curatorial Activism and it's really reframing my beliefs on what art is and what it does. I think many types of work can exist in concert and none nullifies any other.
16
@Laura don't forget Orlan and her documented plastic surgeries.
1
I'm sorry dude, it's a powerful image and great art and all that, but you still lit a bloody building on fire. You can make art without endangering people and causing property damage.
28
Bravo to this modern day tea partier -- of the original variety.
Pavlensky has succeeded in creating shock (and a little horror) in a world that has all but become immune to it and in the process brought attention to his noble cause.
Whether anything changes is the sad lingering question.
3
*sigh*
We should all be as conscious and free.
4
This is a powerful piece. The photos included brought a contrast to both the artist’s words and the description of him. I do want to read more articles like this from around the world.
From my reading, I felt turned by his action in Paris compared to his actions in Russia. I believe that the injustice in Russia is unfounded and that his actions uncover and defy it with an almost open mirror. I believe that he is at home with his political art in Russia because that is his native country. As for Paris, I think his actions are influenced by misinformation. Because that is not his home, I feel his actions are against something that doesn’t exist, as compared to his actions in Russia. I don’t agree with what he did in Paris and I think that his exile is working against his true calling placing him outside his home. He should return home and face what he says he’s not afraid of, the the later part of his art, the actions against him, prison.
2
This is a man who is baiting a steamroller and it's only a matter of time. It won't be pretty and it won't be art. Masochism wrapped in Political theater is focused on the short run and rarely exceeds the next news cycle.
5
Such characters are not artists and what they do is not art. Not by any definition that has any standards. Art is far more specific than the modernist/post-modernist critics would have you think. Presentations are not art. Installations are not art. "Performance Art" is not art. They are something, but not art. Calling them art destroys art. Because of the four "performance artists" who used government grants to go to ridiculous extremes, the vital NEA was virtually destroyed. Along with the program that had funded them, we also lost the classical music solo artist touring program, yes, the one that launched the career of YoYo Ma. That's the kind of damage it does. Leading people to think that anyone can do anything and call it art is damaging. It is totally destructive. For all its strength, art is fragile and requires strong definitions. Art requires high levels of talent, study, technique, skill, concept, execution, polish and quality. The only one of those Performance Art and its variations has is concept and possibly execution. It's okay to make mistakes in the pursuit of developing art, but we must be ready to admit and call them mistakes when we see them. There are dead ends in art and we have arrived at far too many of them. The center cannot hold when the fringe pulls all the energy away. Get back to the center. Then you might find a real direction.
18
What makes you so sure of this? These seem to be the very ideas this artist is challenging.
This is not about free-fall experiences, performances or collections of things. Far from it.
IMHO, it is well-considered and thoughtful. And yes, I call it art.
8
You seem very certain that your definition of art is the only possible one.
3
@Grittenhouse It would be interesting to know what grounds your authority on the subject. Your recollection of what happened to the NEA grant programs is exactly what was intended. Piss Christ, at the heart of that debacle, was actually well understood in art's professional sphere and was counterintuitively not anti-religion. It wasn't until a Mississippi Protestant fundamentalist group, American Family Alliance, simplified it to a mere image that it became the poster child for the movement against the NEA. When a group of people as uninformed as a group of Senators find some political advantage in something you can be sure you've done something right. Sadly the levers of power that control major art funding, including the drivers of 'culture' cited here, are never sophisticated enough to see anything beyond the veneer always retreat to bland definition of talent that are always 50 years behind the times. Not incidentally the word talent itself has scriptural roots. A talent, literally, is the monetary value of your entire life's work. If that definition holds, then this artist Piotr is a real contender.
Bravo. I think.
His work is challenging as great art often is. It provokes in a profound way, a way lost to most people I believe. The same way that philosophy or the cosmos is/are lost to most people.
9
Thank goodness that you, Joseph, are so erudite and able to understand art and the cosmos and philosophy. We plebeians will simply shuffle along through life.
1
@Joseph Great art is not challenging or provocative as a raison d'etre. Philosophy is lost on most people because it is an abstraction that is dangerous, often wrong, often useless, and mostly self-serving. The cosmos is not lost on anyone who looks up at the sky.
3
Art or self-absorbed narcissism? As I read this article I was filled with an overwhelming sadness for the two children brought into the world by Pavlensky and his wife. Each person is free to do with his life as he wishes, but when one brings children into the equation that is a different matter, for me. I suppose it would be hopelessly bourgeoisie for them as parents to consider the responsibility they had to their offspring to provide housing and some stability in their lives,
rather than father in jail, of his own volition.
57
Maybe that is why he & his partner split.
@Anne -- As psychopathy runs through the population of great capitalists by an order of magnitude, so too does narcissism run through the population of great artists.
You may say there is a fine line between a psychopath who does not feel for others and a narcissist who feels only for himself, and you would be right, often the two disorders are found in the same persons to varying degrees.
In Pyotr Pavlensky, he likely has the narcissism but not the psychopathy. And for great art, I am willing to put up with narcissists, and I did so fo a great many years.
1
@Anne Same thing, but it is important. I do not feel sad for the children.
By most any definition except those who reject his message or his audacity, this is art. Art is expression which at a minimum conveys what the creator intends and perhaps elicits emotion as communicated through whichever medium is employed. The medium may be clay or paint or words or sound. Clearly it can be animate or inanimate. It can be permanent or fleeting; both are experiential to those involved.
19
There is hope!
Such exhilaration!
To feel so deeply like so few can. To risk his life for the betterment of society.
Oh, dear, you say, what about the soldiers? They catch bullets and bombs and prison too!
I worked on a production curated and produced by Robert Millar in Santa Monica in 1994 that included the Ron Athey Company -- I was the lighting designer -- and saw up close what it meant for artists to sacrifice their bodies for a performance that would alter the lives of everyone who were present for it. They performed a Catholic processional for nearly one hour from one end to the other with the audience seated as if at a tennis court. There were many stations, each one torture of one kind or another that I cannot describe in this comment. Live human torture on stage in total silence. Yes, this was the period of Silence = Death, and they had the courage to perform for the audience who had a vicarious experience: yes it was painful for all of us, except our pain was bloodless.
I want Pyotr to know he is a great hero of our time and will forever live in my heart for what he has done. He will likely have the effect in his life what whole armies seek to accomplish with their vast sums of money and violence and death.
21
I loved this article, great research and context. what strikes me as bizarre though, are the many comments about how unnecessary his self mutilation were... as if without them, we would even hear about him. I wish I had courage to ACT more against the relentless loss of our rights.
Here in France, the "Vigipirate" system is thriving, limiting our access to normalcy to the point where we won't even remember what freedom of movement, community sharing or personal privacy even means. The most frustrating part is how people actually have convinced themselves that they are somehow safer and it is worth it.
At a recent free music festival, normally closed to cars, but open to the people, an entire downtown of Belfort was enclosed by fences. In order to enter, one had to walk all the way around to one of the few police check points. Now, THAT felt unsafe. Within the barriers was an entire village, with apartments and cars. At any moment, someone could come out and engage in any number of destructive behaviors. Because exit was limited to just a few places, imagine the stampede and the real possibility of deadly chaos.
The vast resources wasted on these theatre performance pieces could possibly be considered art too... but instead of one guy, we are all paying the price.
23
@nicole
Forgive me but wouldn't the police cordon(checking for illegals arms, blocking drive throughs) be a result of the ISIS screw art killers? You have stated that "at any moment etc,". Who is actually living in a state of fear? You, because of State domination or acts of killing terrorists? Another thing: Wasting resources are art performances or the performance?
When his art was protesting Russian/Soviet inhumanity, his work was genius. Truly genius. In the West, it's just weird and sad.
17
Why? A culture that cannot be criticized is impossible. if you mean his work is questionable, I agree. But then again, I may not understand what he's arguing against that well.
6
@Alyce. In other words, when he is tweaking people and institutions you don't like, he is a genius. When he is tweaking people and institutions you respect, he is weird and sad.
3
@Alyce I feel the same way about Ai Weiwei. The closer he got to institutional success the more he became a trope.
1
Seems to this old film darkroom era photog & author ,that the 1970's self revealing autobiographical documentaries is returning (usually of pain) in our digital made media ,should we call it ME dia?
3
Not much of his stuff is new--it's pretty much all be done before.
8
@Muddlerminnow That doesn't mean it isn't worth repeating.
What will midlife crisis be for this guy? A job as an accountant, a monogamous relationship and a house with a mortgage?
51
@MWR He deserves none of those horrible outcomes. He deserves better.
1
@MWR
He's probably there already - found himself a "bourgeois" lady friend with a nice apartment.
@Bob Milnover It also needs to be said that his violent acts and destruction are not to be excused or overlooked.
1
I totally agree! Reading this article it made me really reexamined the MEANING of art it’s not to be pretty (although it can be) it’s not even always to tell a story in fact the emotion of a piece itself can be completely unknown. Pyotr Pavlensky’s Art is the holy grail and very essence of why art is really made: for the purpose of making you THINK, he isn’t even trying to change your mind about anything as he stands in front of the burning building in “Lightning” he simply makes art that allows the human eye to indulge on the greatest level of curiosity. You may hate his work. You may love his work. But every is changed by his work because YOU LOOKED IN THE FIRST PLACE! And that’s just it, if you looked in the first place, if you read about him in the first place, if you had an opinion about him in the first place, his art has you GOT because he just GOT YOU to THINK.
19
@Keelin Ercolani. I found the photos in this piece to be forms of incredible beauty. Pavlensky may be crazy but his work is crazy beautiful.
2
@Keelin Ercolani
If someone had died from his arson, would it still have been art?
Anyone, anywhere, who thinks what this lunatic and self promoting idiot produces is "art" of any sort needs to have their head examined.
He is a charlatan, fraud, and is in need of psychiatric help.
32
I'm an artist and my art has been called bizarre but no flesh chopping for me.
Personally, whatever floats your boat artwise unless it involves the abuse of children or animals. So since these people are adults, chop or sew to your heart's delight.
However...these people have children and I think it's a very negative environment to raise children in. Dad doing this horrifying stuff and calling it art. Prison sentences to boot.
It feels untraviolent and extremely scary. A nightmarish life.
26
I think this is a beautiful man with searing life agenda. I’m a bit worried about the public safety aspect, but my heart goes out to this man who is trying to wake up people to the injustice around us. He’s not mad, he’s a prophet
22
I have mixed feelings about this type of art. Growing up in L.A. I knew a lot of these kinds of artists. Many were narcissistic attention seekers. Some were making a new type of experiential art. I’m sure this gentleman is passionate about what he does, but he may be too idealistic for this world. Setting a building afire, no matter how good intentioned, results in damage and possible physical harm. In my opinion, that is a line no artist should cross, otherwise they’re becoming judge, jury and executioner, in effect embracing the same mindset they’re protesting.
20
I am going to keep my comment brief, mainly because every now and then lengthy commentary is unnecessary, and maybe even counterproductive. Mr. Pavlensky is either mentally ill or not. I am content to let the responsible authorities make that determination. But his behavior has repeatedly crossed the bounds of what a rational society should put up with. If mentally ill he should be confined until he no longer represents a risk to himself or others (including both public and private property). If he is not mentally ill, he should be jailed. I am fairly libertarian in my approach to freedom of speech and expression. But my rights, and his, stop at the tip of my neighbor's nose, or the border of their property. That this is even being debated is not a sign of a healthy society. Enough is enough.
10
Who exactly are the responsible authorities and why do you assume they are infallible?
2
@MikeZim
The courts. And I do not assume they are infallible. Only that they are the best we have with the alternative being anarchy. Some may favor anarchism, but I have no patience for that sort of foolishness.
@MikeZim
One doesn't have to assume the authorities are infallible or unchallengeable to still feel it is better not to burn down buildings, and to appreciate the "authorities" - such as firefighters - a real authoritarian lot, those firefighters - showing up to put out the fire.
2
It's good to have a healthy variety of stories to give meaning to our lives, even if the story of property rights conflicts with some of the more adventurous tales of being human in a world of nothingness.
9
I wonder if he finds it slightly ironic that, as much as he seems to pity and dismiss his parents’ dependence on the state and on the trivialities of a comfortable existence, he too depends on the state (albeit as an antagonist) and the rigid conformity to his nonsensical, trivial non-conformity. His acts of protest are nearly as routine as his father’s job - actions that are heavily scripted within our societies: the protestor.
The telltale sign of the emptiness of his work is that he judges his actions using the measures of the state (currency, damage, inconvenience, annoyance) and requires the apparatus of the existing system (the media, the courts) for his theater. It lays plain that the only apparent purpose for his work is to antagonize, to be noticed, be recorded, and then to be acclaimed. Not to change. Not to serve anyone other than himself.
Evidently his new relationship will afford him the vacation his mother so badly wanted him to have. And he only has a few words of regret - but is still willing to take it.
7
Think how much more affective a well-worded essay, editorial or book would be in addressing the problems he's protesting about. Self-mutilation is a more shocking way to protest, sure, but will it be as effective as written words can be?
As to calling self-mutilation 'art' - only narcissists and masochists would agree with that.
14
It's certainly thought-provoking, but I wonder if Pyotr Pavlensky just denies everything for the sake of denial. What would the ideal world that Mr. Pavlensky wants to replace the current imperfect society with look like? Not that we will ever reach the ideal, but it's useful to have the image in mind. From his art, I get no hints. It's just flat denial of the system but no constructive proposal of how things should be or could be done better. Many people are unhappy with their governments and conformism etc. Does he have any constructive ideas at all?
I have chickens and goats and I observe every day their chicken society and goat society, and I've noticed it's not that much different from human society. You accept certain rules imposed by the group in exchange for the right to be part of the group, use its resources and have its protection, live in the safety and stability of the group. Humans may be more sophisticated, but chickens and goats and humans basically do the same thing - create (an imperfect) society to live in. Rejecting basic common rules that benefit everyone (for instance, if you want to eat, you don't shoplift. You grow your own vegetables, or you work and earn money and buy food. You also don't burn property that doesn't belong to you) is different from rebelling against an oppressive regime. I'm not sure where Mr. Pavlensky draws the line. It seems he doesn't really think of the difference at all. This lack of clarity makes his message unconvincing.
18
I have some inkling of where he’s coming from. I wouldn’t have the stomach to do such things, but the babies and children being held for political grandstanding at the border does require action. Marching and sending money hasn’t helped one bit. This is a moment in history that we will regret.
40
@Bitter Mouse
that's it. we witness dreadful tragedy; ordinary "polite" protests have no traction. What response fits the times?
3
Art, being an aesthetic rather than a hard-science, is not concretely defined. It isn't meant to be, because the experience of art is something subjective. It is a distinctly personal thing.
That being said, for any particular artistic activity, there is usually some fairly well defined criteria which constrains this subjectivity in the pursuit of a more objective evaluation. And this has definite value. Think of Olympic skating for example. And these more objective criteria are usually a distillation of the opinions of those who are considered masters of that particular craft.
Watching Roger Federer play tennis today, was, for me, like watching a master artist at work. But I think that perception is informed by the fact that I have been a tennis player for decades. And when you do something a lot, you tend to develop an eye for when someone else is doing it extremely well.
On the other hand, one needn't have composed a symphony to appreciate the Ninth.
Ultimately, art is whatever moves you. And, conversely, moving people is the hallmark of all great art, and artists.
For me, perhaps due to the fact that my ancestry is part French, the greatest art of all, is how you live your life. One's Joie De Vivre. And in that sense, we are all artists. And, particularly in this case, I would say that some art is significantly better than others. Subjectively as well as objectively.
Our current President, for example, being a glaringly abject failure in this regard.
14
It appears that soon any human activity will fall under the rubric of ART.
The images he has produced are unquestionably striking and demand an immediate response. He, like few others, has donated his body as some of the material used in his work which while impactful is immediately ephemeral.
Setting fires and waiting around to be arrested as a statement has an immediate impact, but creating destructive action of that sort opens a portal for any human activity to pass through and be accepted as art.
Clearly there is more to art than painting and sculpture, but how much more? Can any human activity be thought of art or must there be a process filtered through scholarly experts before that activity is considered? Should a person whose largest organ is covered with tatoos be considered living art? Is it art because I say it is?
Granted I am no spring chicken and, however loosely, a formally trained artist, both of which bring a real prejudice to my thought,
but while the activities of Mr Pavlensky are more than a noteworthy and very strong social protest, calling them art just doesn't ring true to me.
He was arrested and spent time in jail not because he made a work of art, rather that he committed a crime. He was not creative. He was destructive.
43
@Ian MacFarlane
Art, being an aesthetic rather than a hard-science, is not concretely defined. It isn't meant to be, because the experience of art is something very subjective. It is a distinctly personal thing.
That being said, for any particular artistic activity, there is usually some fairly well defined criteria which constrains this subjectivity in the pursuit of a more objective evaluation. And this has definite value. Think of Olympic skating for example. And these more objective criteria are usually a distillation of the opinions of those who are considered masters of that particular craft.
Watching Federer play tennis today, was, for me, like watching an artist at work. But I think that perception has a lot to do with the fact that I have been a tennis player for decades. And when you do something a lot, you tend to develop an eye for when someone else is doing it extremely well.
On the other hand, one needn't have composed a symphony to appreciate the Ninth.
Ultimately, art is whatever moves you. And, conversely, moving people is the hallmark of all great art.
For me, perhaps due to the fact that my ancestry is part French, the greatest art of all, is how you live your life. One's Joie De Vivre. And in that sense, we are all artists. And, particularly in this case, I would say that some art is significantly better than others. Subjectively as well as objectively.
Our current President, for example, being a glaringly abject failure in this regard.
4
@Chicago Guy Beg to disagree. Art isn't "whatever moves you." It requires ARTistry. But this guy does have it.
@Chicago Guy
If everything made by human hands is considered "art" there is no art.
Art has to unfold and open in the mind before the image can be absorbed.
I find no mystery or surprise in his work.
Pavlensky's art does me think of art and power, but probably not in the way he intends. As I see it, where he comes from, how he lives, and his art, have more to do with his own lack of power and agency than with anything else. I don't see how his actions are much different from the dangerous stunts poor kids perform to post on YouTube. After alluding to how Pavlenski radiates an almost Christlike suffering in his work titled "Seam," the article goes on to mention Chris Burden, who in addition to being shot in the arm crucified himself on a Volkswagen bug. I wonder if by this performance Burden was acknowledging a cliche in performance art--so much of it is a variation on the crucifixion, displays not just of powerlessness but also of religious zeal.
22
The (art) cynic in me thinks it will be interesting to watch as Pavlensky's works become casually appropriated and monetized by-and-for the very cultural institutions/social systems his performative rebellions target.
[I hope it's not the eventual case; however, it does happen (see also: Bansky, Ai WeiWei,..).]
Or perhaps such future art world marketing, branding, consumption and profiteering become raw materials to be enfolded back into the next levels of his work?
12
@tartz
I think that's why he chose to produce art that is performative and ephemeral. It's not material, exists only for a moment, and cannot be sold.
11
I don't think arson is all that blurry of a line. Pretty solidly in the crime column. Glad he thinks jail is all part of the art.
126
Reading through this, I couldn't help but think,
Emma Chamberlain and Pyotr Pavlensky need to meet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/style/emma-chamberlain-youtube.html
It might result in nothing ... or a rip in the fabric of the media-message continuum. Make it happen NYT.
15
Do you say this because of the undertones (well, overtones) of misogyny in the descriptions of Pyotyr’s actions and relationships? I’m surprised this hasn’t been commented on more. What I’m left with after reading this article is an image of a woman who cut off her pinky because she wasn’t “totally transparent” with her partner.
1
Traditionally, art is supposed to be visually appealing. Yes, religous art was intended to convey a message as well, but looking pretty was what defined it as “art” rather than “sermon”.
What this man does should more properly be called “dramatically presented political protest.”
22
@Z97
How blind you are to "art".
Is all "art" visual?
What about the use of his own body as a form of performance?
And, to be clear, much of his work is conceptual.
If anything, think. Think harder.
36
@Z97 Art is supposed to invoke an emotion in the viewer. You certainly don't have to like it.
34
@Mateo, evoking an emotion in the viewer is only one attribute. Beauty is another, albeit one that is out of fashion.
To me, if “art” is just about provoking an emotion, you could stab viewers with pins and call it “art”. And I’m sure there are people who would, in fact, define that as art. However, my understanding of art is that being visually appealing must be the main goal. That doesn’t mean I have to like each piece, just that the intent must be there.
13
That is commitment.
39
None of this sounds healthy to me.
Yes, there are injustices in the world and drawing attention to that can require extraordinary steps.
But chopping off your own little finger because you cheated shows that these radical actions aren’t singularly undertaken to expose oppression- they’re also doing this stuff in their own personal lives.
Yikes. Too far.
103
@L Brown It's not about "health", nor is it relevant whether or not it's a part of their personal lives. How does either of those things matter? This is an extraordinarily personal dedication, and an immense sacrifice of most creature comforts and rights. We should all be so brave.
2
Lol. Seriously? Self-mutilation for attention isn't art. It's narcissism.
140
@Hugh MacDonald
I don't know what I find more disheartening: your comment or the fact it is the most popular.
11
@Hugh MacDonald
It's not narcissism, it's activism in the form of art.
Do you call monks who commit self-immolation activists or narcissists?
6
@Hugh MacDonald It's not for "attention". If that was the case he'd do it and carry on an otherwise regular life, like most people who act out. What, exactly is he benefitting from? How is time in jail away from his family, without an income, no fixed home, simply attention seeking? Perhaps life has not been cruel enough to you for you to understand.
5
Tough to look at.
Maybe, in this age when "art" is valued by the millions it brings in at Christie's auctions from Chinese and other billionaires, we do need a kick in the teeth to remind us that art doesn't always whisper in tones pleasing to the ear; it screams.
111
Really interesting piece. Made me think about the nature of art and power. His daughters, though...they’re going to have a rough go.
131
@Laura
Are they? A "joyous peekaboo" and drawing pictures in their bedroom? Learning kickboxing, poetry, chess, and then enrolling in the local primaire? A comfortable, bourgeois woman with a big apartment, an artist, and an artist's helper for parents? It doesn't look like he brought his girls along on his admittedly shocking artwork; most people don't and his absences in prison could have been like any parent's occasional absences for work.
Many of today's most uninhibited, creative and self-realized adults are the children of people like Pavlensky who did not let culture's norms dictate their parenting style. Sounds like the girls will have choices that those whose parents harangue them about staying in the mainstream won't.
At the very least there is not enough information here to condemn the artist for his parenting.
5