Performatyvus menas ir politinis ¡vykis: Nomedos ir Gedimino Urbonų atvejis

LTŠiame straipsnyje ketinu apsvarstyti performatyvaus teiginio ir performatyvumo sampratas, susiedama jas su performanso ir performatyvaus meno kūrinio sąvokomis. Sio straipsnio „darbinė" hipotezė ta, kad kiekvienam performatyviam teiginiui (performatyviam aktui) reikia tam tikro performanso (tam tikrų tinkamų aplinkybių, scenos ar konvencijos), tačiau ne kiekvienas performansas turi performatyvią galią. Kitaip tariant, ne kiekvienas performatyvus meno kūrinys atlieka tai, ką teigia atliekąs, ne kiekvienas turi realių socialinių ir politinių padarinių. Kita vertus, galime klausti, iš kur performatyvus meno kūrinys gauna šią galią? Ar nėra taip, kad meniniai performatyvai, kaip ir kiekviena fikcija, parazituoja per esamas socialines ir politines reikšmes, minta kažkieno sukurtomis reikšmėmis, tačiau būtent todėl laikomi „sėkmingais" ir „reikšmingais"? Šie klausimai plėtojami analizuojant Nomedos ir Gedimino Urbonų projektus Protesto laboratorija (2005) ir Villa Lituania (2007). [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Performatyvus teiginys; Performatyvumas; Performansas; Performatyvus menas; Politinis jvykis; Performative utterance; Performativity; Performance; Performative art; Political event.

ENThe article discusses the notions of performative utterance, performativity, performance and performative artwork. John Langshaw Austin in his book How To Do Things With Words makes a distinction between the constative and the performative utterances. The constative utterances are statements of fact that refer to the state of things and in this sense can be considered as being true or false. Performatives, on the contrary, not only refer but actually perform what they utter. That means that performative utterances cannot be true or false; instead they can be successful or unsuccessful. Austin considers many different ways in which a performative utterance might go wrong or fail to take effect. These failures are divided into two categories: misfires and abuses. Misfires result when the intended outcome of the performative utterance does not occur or is not carried out, owing to inappropriate circumstances. In case of an abuse the act succeeds, it is executed; but it may be executed in bad faith; in such case, I deceive my interlocutor. In these cases, there is something like a fundamental failure of intention or accomplishment. This "failure of intention" leads us to another group of infelicities: the so-called "non-serious" performatives. Here Austin points out that a performative utterance in certain circumstances can be used not seriously, but in ways parasitic upon its normal use. Austin makes a distinction between proper or substantial performatives and "parasitic" or fictional performatives. Jacques Derrida in his famous text "Signature, Event, Context" deconstructs this alleged distinction between substantial performatives and hollow, abnormal ones. For Derrida, this distinction is undermined by Austin's insistence that every performative utterance is based on convention or citationality of already existing models.Judith Butler, commenting on both Austin and Derrida in her book Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, discusses the improper use of the performative utterance for political purposes. In this sense, the misapplied performative statement can be used as a means for institutional and political critique and work in counter-hegemonic ways. Having in mind this power of the performative to work in counter-hegemonic ways, I discuss the artistic projects Pro-Test Lab (2005) and Villa Lituania (2007) by Nomeda and Gediminas Urbonas. These projects, on the one hand, express clear features of an abuse and a misfire: the messages they transmitted were quite ambivalent and some of them failed. On the other hand, those failures produced a counter-hegemonic effect, provoking a real response from Lithuanian and Italian politicians. In this sense, Austin's ideas can be substantially improved, showing that even misfires and abuses can be considered as a case of successful performative practices. [From the publication]