Verónica Zebadúa-Yañez, “Killing as Performance: Violence and the Shaping of Community,” E-Misférica, Sexualities and Politics in the Americas 2:2 (Fall, 2005).
Killing as performance? My initial reaction to reading the title of this essay skewed my perception of what I was about to read. Immediately, I assumed that this article would devalue human life, and provide a protective umbrella to murderers who committed these acts of violence.
However, I had yet to read passed the title. In the article “Killing as Performance” by Veronica Zebadua-Yanez juxtaposes performance art with the homicide that envelops the city as opposed to epitomizing killing as performance. She provides us with a definition of performance and how she uses it to provide detail to her essay, “A 'performative' is usually defined as a type of utterance that through its very enunciation accomplishes or generates a particular effect (Parker and Sedgwick 1995: 3). In How to Do Things with Words, J. L. Austin argues that in order to be effective, performatives need a 'proper context', a context that allows for the appropriate interpretation of the utterance and through which the message can be rightly conveyed” (Pg 2).
I also began to understand the allegorical picture she was trying to paint, and relate the acts of violence to a performance piece. Especially when she states, “I propose to understand these killings themselves as a performance, a political performance, and to regard the killers as political actors par excellence. By the precise and highly ritualized repetition of these femicides – the sequence of abduction, torture, rape, strangling, disposal of the body in a public place is to be found in almost every account of the crimes – the community is constantly reshaping its borders. In consequence, inclusions and exclusions are being clearly and explicitly delineated, and a political message is sent. [...] In their performance, the pseudo-sovereigns of the community, without being truly aware of it, convey something which they do not dare to publicly utter [..]The horrific performance screams: you women are nothing! (Pg 6).
I agree that we can take something such as murder and provide an idealized perception on how it could be viewed as performance art. But, my main concern is that is it allowing us to idealize situations that are violent and hurtful towards others? Does this blur the line even more of what is considered art and what isn’t? How far can we take art, and where do we stop it?
It was a bit difficult to swallow this idea of killing as a performance art. The article by Veronica Zebadua-Yanez entitled "Killing as a Performance Art", suggests that the murders of woman in Juarez, Mexico can take on a form of Performance Art. Immediately I assumed that this was a degrading concept. How can the murder of someone become performance art. It was almost making light of the seriousness of the murders of these poor woman happening in Juarez. The more I understood where the author was coming from, the more realistic this idea became.
Veronica Zebadua-Yanez gives several ideas of how the murders in Juarez can in fact be deemed Performance Art. She states:"I propose to understand these killings themselves as a performance, a political performance, and to regard the killers as political actors par excellence" (Zebadua-Yanez, 6). As we have seen their is not consistent form of performance art. There can be similarities between performances, but the constant question of is this performance art? continues.
I continued to keep an open mind and felt that this idea of what human lives are worth grieving over kept consuming me. This is a valid argument by Zebadua-Yanez. Like the Regina Jose Gallindo "Perra" performance we face this idea of a woman's death not being worthy of grief. Many women are killed with no regard in Juarez Mexico.
Although the violent acts deemed performance art in the article are not done by an artist or for art purposes, it is indeed a performance. A message can be derived from these acts. The performance reiterates the unjust crimes against woman in Juarez.
Verónica Zebadúa-Yañez’s article, although hard to decipher at some points, make an interesting statement about the murders of Juarez. Yañez describes the murders taking place in Juarez as a performative action themselves, and that as a performance they signify political inequality and femicide. “I propose to understand these killings themselves as a performance, a political performance, and to regard the killers as political actors par excellence” (6). The murders function as pieces of a body of work. They inform each other and the next.
Yañez brings up an idea of gender inequality by stating, “the fact that we must exclude our bodies in order to have a sociopolitical life and that this strange and impossible exclusion is what constitutes civil life as such” (7). Merely being a woman in Juarez, whether you were born there or not, puts you in the face of death and marks you as a disposable object. It is also interesting to note the prominence of Maquiladoras in Juarez. Objectification has transcended the factories into the women. To make matters worse, because these women are treated as if they are invisible, hardly anyone makes an effort to recognize them. And if someone does, the Juarez authorities will make sure that they don’t get far.
I’m not too familiar with the women of Juarez, but I actually became more educated about it when I went to an exhibition by Maya Goded at the California Museum of Photography in Riverside. If this whole situation is seen as a performance, how do the innocent people of Juarez out-perform the performers (murderers)? Will the industry of the town have to change to help this? How can an artist bring these women forward, while also keeping them safe from harm?
Killing as performance? My initial reaction to reading the title of this essay skewed my perception of what I was about to read. Immediately, I assumed that this article would devalue human life, and provide a protective umbrella to murderers who committed these acts of violence.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I had yet to read passed the title. In the article “Killing as Performance” by Veronica Zebadua-Yanez juxtaposes performance art with the homicide that envelops the city as opposed to epitomizing killing as performance. She provides us with a definition of performance and how she uses it to provide detail to her essay, “A 'performative' is usually defined as a type of utterance that through its very
enunciation accomplishes or generates a particular effect (Parker and Sedgwick 1995: 3). In How to Do Things with Words, J. L. Austin argues that in order to be effective, performatives need a 'proper context', a context that allows for the appropriate interpretation of the utterance and through which the message can be rightly conveyed” (Pg 2).
I also began to understand the allegorical picture she was trying to paint, and relate the acts of violence to a performance piece. Especially when she states, “I propose to understand these killings themselves as a performance, a political performance, and to regard the killers as political actors par excellence. By the precise and highly ritualized repetition of these femicides – the sequence of abduction, torture, rape, strangling, disposal of the body in a public place is to be found in almost every account of the crimes – the community is constantly reshaping its borders. In consequence, inclusions and exclusions are being clearly and explicitly delineated, and a political message is sent. [...] In their performance, the pseudo-sovereigns of the community, without being truly aware of it, convey something which they do not dare to publicly utter [..]The horrific performance screams: you women are nothing! (Pg 6).
I agree that we can take something such as murder and provide an idealized perception on how it could be viewed as performance art. But, my main concern is that is it allowing us to idealize situations that are violent and hurtful towards others? Does this blur the line even more of what is considered art and what isn’t? How far can we take art, and where do we stop it?
It was a bit difficult to swallow this idea of killing as a performance art. The article by Veronica Zebadua-Yanez entitled "Killing as a Performance Art", suggests that the murders of woman in Juarez, Mexico can take on a form of Performance Art. Immediately I assumed that this was a degrading concept. How can the murder of someone become performance art. It was almost making light of the seriousness of the murders of these poor woman happening in Juarez. The more I understood where the author was coming from, the more realistic this idea became.
ReplyDeleteVeronica Zebadua-Yanez gives several ideas of how the murders in Juarez can in fact be deemed Performance Art. She states:"I propose to understand these killings themselves as a performance, a political performance, and to regard the killers as political actors par excellence" (Zebadua-Yanez, 6). As we have seen their is not consistent form of performance art. There can be similarities between performances, but the constant question of is this performance art? continues.
I continued to keep an open mind and felt that this idea of what human lives are worth grieving over kept consuming me. This is a valid argument by Zebadua-Yanez. Like the Regina Jose Gallindo "Perra" performance we face this idea of a woman's death not being worthy of grief. Many women are killed with no regard in Juarez Mexico.
Although the violent acts deemed performance art in the article are not done by an artist or for art purposes, it is indeed a performance. A message can be derived from these acts. The performance reiterates the unjust crimes against woman in Juarez.
Verónica Zebadúa-Yañez’s article, although hard to decipher at some points, make an interesting statement about the murders of Juarez. Yañez describes the murders taking place in Juarez as a performative action themselves, and that as a performance they signify political inequality and femicide. “I propose to understand these killings themselves as a performance, a political performance, and to regard the killers as political actors par excellence” (6). The murders function as pieces of a body of work. They inform each other and the next.
ReplyDeleteYañez brings up an idea of gender inequality by stating, “the fact that we must exclude our bodies in order to have a sociopolitical life and that this strange and impossible exclusion is what constitutes civil life as such” (7). Merely being a woman in Juarez, whether you were born there or not, puts you in the face of death and marks you as a disposable object. It is also interesting to note the prominence of Maquiladoras in Juarez. Objectification has transcended the factories into the women. To make matters worse, because these women are treated as if they are invisible, hardly anyone makes an effort to recognize them. And if someone does, the Juarez authorities will make sure that they don’t get far.
I’m not too familiar with the women of Juarez, but I actually became more educated about it when I went to an exhibition by Maya Goded at the California Museum of Photography in Riverside. If this whole situation is seen as a performance, how do the innocent people of Juarez out-perform the performers (murderers)? Will the industry of the town have to change to help this? How can an artist bring these women forward, while also keeping them safe from harm?
http://mayagoded.com/mg/projects/missing/