15
NOTES ON CHRIS BURDEN’S THROUGH THE NIGHT SOFTLY Pope.L
Chris Burden was only a rumor before I really started paying attention to him. Once I did, I found him a very resonant figure and his work very focused: Shoot, Locker Piece, Trans-fixed...I absorbed all of them via rumor, photos, and the writing surrounding them.
it by refusing to say it. What is said about a work of art after it is made changes it. Is it possible to say so much or just enough that the chat creates a whole new work? Rumor propelled Burden’s career, but explication will transform it.
I heard about Through the Night Softly aka TTNS later than the live work and before I ever saw the video. When I finally saw the video, I was struck by it.
Whereas Acconci wouldn’t shut up, Burden was silent, stifled, petulant, scared, or just coy. In work after work, he sequestered himself, disappeared himself, or muffled his physical appearance and therefore any access to it. Or he framed the performance as an “appearance” or a “cameo” or a fluke, in many cases using extreme brevity, silence, or absence to forestall communication—why?
Unlike much of Burden’s live work, TTNS was presented as a moving image and, at least initially, was broadcast on TV so it came off very differently than the previous pieces. Despite the difference in medium, a few things remained the same: an overall cool laconic feel, a knowing use of time, the utilization of very few elements to construct the work, a sense of compression (that more was being suggested by giving little information) and at the same time, a sense that the poetics of the work moved beyond its obvious boundedness. People have asked me if TTNS influenced my crawl work—I don’t know, maybe. Why not? Of course.
Compared to Burden, performance practitioners like Vito Acconci, Joseph Beuys, or even Marina Abramovic were much more communicative either in how they built their work or how they framed it afterwards. Many of them used language in the works themselves. Burden, by thinning or withholding language in and around his work, made his pieces seem more solid, more object-like, more unto themselves. Why? Overall, he seemed less social, less interested in the group and more interested in the personal vision of the artist. In this way, he was a very modernist artist—very much focused on what he had to “say” even if he said
In TTNS, Burden used editing to convince us of the object-nature of the video: abrupt edits at the beginning and end, no internal edits, and close-up framing. The strategies combined to suggest that the slice you see in the video is the only slice there ever was. For the all the liveness that came before, now in TTNS we have the truth: performance is a presentation of facts not a resolution of those facts. The three-quarter, almost bird’s-eye view of the camera points to the position of the camera. During this period for much art cinema, the camera was intentionally made invisible. Burden subjectivizes the camera and cues us that someone is looking (at him?) and you, the viewer, are only able to look as a result of that first looking. He is, as it were, looking over his shoulder at himself, at us. He definitely wasn’t operating the camera. This is important in creating the trophy. Burden noticed that performance lives only sadly ever after in its debris, its trophies, the leftovers of its passing—this, in a way, is its real aura. The relic (or trophy) left over from TTNS is very unremarkable: a small plexiglass box with bits of safety car glass on a bed of deep dark maroon velvet. The object is so unremarkable or corny it is funny or annoying or both. But, you remember it, and its poverty is instructive.
