Chris Burden's "Shoot"

This performance piece came to mind for me in part because of the Vogler reading; paired with the question of when a book is not a book, the age-old issue of what constitutes art becomes foregrounded in a radical performance piece like this. For Chris Burden's "Shoot" in particular, the idea of the grotesque seems to be a pivotal point for whether it is artistic or just shocking. Burden asked an assistant to shoot him in the left arm from a distance of 5 meters, while being photographed during and directly after. These photographs are difficult to look at, but different from actually witnessing a performance piece because the event already happened (so, more or less grotesque?). This piece was done in the context of a rash of extremist performances in the 1960's-70's (this one was done in 1971), but I wanted to post it on the blog because it exhibits a "smack factor" that is pretty prevalent in contemporary art; I am curious at what point that becomes the grotesque. Does it shift from art to shock value if there isn't an audience? I also think that the label of 'art' on this piece drastically changes implications for the viewer, just as certain kinds of books necessitate more active reader participation. The framework of art alters or legitimizes this action, and also can protect the artist and the audience by providing a buffer over moral obligation 'in the name of art.' Inversely, the label of art makes this action supersede the specificity of anyone being shot in the arm--by claiming to be a performance piece, Burden effectively translates from a kind of universal text (the shooting) into the guise of an artist book (where intention and presentation make it unique from books that are merely vehicles for that text).

This piece was very controversial for a lot of reasons, so if you are interested, I highly recommend reading up on it. There are some great articles out there.