ZBIGNIEW WARPECHOWSKI
PERFORMARE 5'

I am preparing for a performance in a town `X'. I work with different themes and variations, look at them from different angles. From the inside, I check my own, my form, and from outside I imagine how it could be seen by others. Accessories, catalysts, developers, objects to be used all played with. Meaningful, telling, important and unimportant situations. Important are these in which I want to place myself in a significant way and make this image permanent. Unimportant situations are those that do not carry any meaning, purely decorative, abstract. Sometimes a certain image is eluding us, and only after `turning' it into a performance, turns out to have a meaning; something, I saw as important for myself.

But throughout this whole time of preparation I am concern with something else, truly important. In fact I feel responsible for this discipline of Art (Performance Art). Therefore, I will view any degeneration, discredit or indifference in the discipline of Performance Art as my personal failure. (I know I risk a lot, declaring this).There is nothing to worry about when it comes to the past - that which has already been achieved. At this moment in time I am becoming concern with whether the repertoire of this discipline - it´s psychophysical range of possible figures and situations connected with the performer is limited or exhaustible?

Did the artistics of Performance Art get aged ? Say, in a context of new-media and computer technologies, image and sound manipulation? (judging from the films of Zbigniew Rybczynski, and other video-computer novelties, these high definition technologies are not necessarily accompanied by artistic discovery). An artwork's coming into being should result from the being of the artist. And should depend on the ways in which he turns his presence into reality (given that in order to do so, he chooses the most appropriate form of activity). The knowledge or technology can facilitate the choice of the appropriate form but they alone can not determinate that choice nor substitute for it. It would also be naive to disregard self-knowledge, based on which one can foresee the effects of one activity. This can be achieved through: speculation, premeditation, to at least this extent that one should not be disappointed or feel miserable when one finds out that the outside world disdains his effort and sacrifice. I think- that neither Rembrandt nor Van Gogh were surprised to realize that they were rejected, nor that they consider to compromise, because of that.

The fact that Performance Art positions itself in the state of suspense, that it is not trivial nor it is ordinarily greedy, that no one can `get a grip on it' through defining it, or categorizing it or even measuring it - will secure its longevity as a permanent critical quality. It is the only artistic discipline that no one yet has dared to organize a competition for, humiliate it with a fictional solemnity, to honor oneself by despising the honoring of the one that is disregarded. (!)

I am wondering about the stylistics of Performance. `Style', `to be of style' it is the `initiating, of the form', where its energy is contained in time, and the artist's fate that merges with it (the spirit of the time") and in the optics of civilization. And Rodins's Le style c'est l'homme" does not satisfy me here. The style which I am aiming at,

( I refer here especially to performance art but not exclusively) it is a man and time. Furthermore, it is man and time perceived dynamically, which means a creative man and time that creates him. Therefore, the stylistics and form - are dynamic qualities, three dimensional and complementary to each other. There is no form that is contained in itself, (and there is no, what Witkacy defined as `Pure Form'). Form in itself is either intentional condition for something that is `formless' or it is `nothingness' in which nothing got created (did not appear, did not present itself). The form referring to a concrete subject (therefore not pure anymore) is an element of the content of the subject. Concerning the stylistics (in reference to Performance Art) that are understood dynamically and connected to the creator (Performance Artist) one has to consider the moving status of the form, this that can be distinquised when the artist is an integral part of the'work'; and this what disappears when the artist `becomes himself (a private person).

To play off of ones privacy, for example to demonstrate and emotionally exploit one's handicap - is an act of abuse, and should be qualified according to norms other than the artistic.

So what happens with the Form - when the artist does not want to become a part of the artwork nor does he thrusts his privacy upon us, but becomes the spirit of the work, or it's energy?

We can call this a 'pure style', indeed - without the Form! Or we could see the `pure style' as a `perfect form'. But in everyday life we can never deliver a perfect performance. A lack of attention, too much self-confidence, a lack of control over the external conditions facilitate `a downstide' into the `stylistics of the genre' - on the conditions of a minimal span of one's imagination. It is not me selecting the subject now, the subject selects me, since I am placed within its reach. One would talk about the `jump into the void' - but you do not jump wearing only slippers.

When I am writing about performances - There is no object in front of me, nor is there a reality being described, unless we count the contents of memory as real. When writing, I give away to my intentions; I go after my intuition searching for something, that I wish would happened, but may never do. I am searching for an example, I see motion, variability, rotations and attempts. I do not get sentimental over the relativities; I look for what is determined by the highest demand. The Art is that demand. And that is enough of a reason. But to come to Art we still do not have enough data. We balance on thinnest line. It is both more easy and difficult to about Performance Art since there is no weight of history, education, nor is there a sufficient literature or authority on the subject. There is nothing to secure one's argument, but there is no return - one has to progress despite the losses along the way.

We do not necessary have to call Performance Art, for as I once described it 'pre-Art'. I have posed a few ideas here, and one of them seems to be especially attractive Le styl c'est authority l'homme". Whatever the great master would think of it, he challenged me here to consider the implications for Performance Art. Throughout the `Art' we enter into ourselves. By erecting the work - we elevate ourselves. I dare to impute that Rodin had this implication in mind. Who was this master that chopped off the arms of his marble statues, with a sword? He wanted to drive his spirit into the stone, going further he could smash the stone, break it into pieces and let the spirit go. The spirit is the deed of spirit. Style merges with man. A work of art merely reflects a will to create.

Style is a capital of energy as long as it has a dynanic connection to time and to a creator - who is an exponent of spirit of time. There is no style without a man, without his presence in time, as a principle of time and the conscience of time. However, in most cases one comes across a stylation. It sponges on forms created by style's energy. Stylization, it is the transferring or imitating of a form in a state of artistic banishment, when an artist is deprived of the working conditions/facilities, or has a limited realm of activity. Style becomes a dead definition, a scheme, a bunch of forms imposed by external forces, executed under threat. This kind of `style' turns to be a form of a manis imprisoment, it becomes a `form of forms'. What distinguishes it, is anonymity, it is not a man's made work-it is a creation of `superior reason', by the token of some unidentified authority, which evaluates one form as superior to the other, points out the `right' choice, way of thing, preference.

`Post-modernism' is the contemporarily indoctrinated style'. It has a mechanically imposed ideological origin - similar to that of `historicism', `eclecticism', or `social-realism'- and similarly to them, it is anonymous,faceless, but believed to be superior"; opportunisticly practiced by trained professionals.

The artist as individual, god forbid independent, is here unwanted. And thus we have entered the artists-less epoch; an epoch of a new generation of faceless artists slaves ready to serve the art-dealers unconditionally, driven by the ideological doctrine, presented as `demands of the market'. To those who may not believe it, I can suggest looking into the collection of new names that are being promoted by art magazines and art fairs - they are producers of art objects empty of ideas, programs, connections or references to reality. The main objective and justification of this art is: 1) Who promotes it 2) Its price 3) The edition ( artists of a lesser working capacity and output or those lacking of a uniform style of expression are neglected).

In my texts there sometimes emerge a concern of political, social or historical kind. These issues obviously contribute to the creation of art and as our reality, create or degenerate - us. From what I just wrote one can conclude that there is a demand for artists-posers. Furthermore, one could just look at role models promoted in the mass media...

I do not see myself being revolutionary and certainly not as a full time/permanent revolutionary. However, I am very surprised, sometimes, to hear my own thoughts. They need to be written down though, I simply can not retreat from produce of my own reason. Thus there is one of these thoughts: Performance Art can originate a style". It should be understandable by now, what style do I have in mind. It is Rodin's definition of style that I am referring to, I shall not be concern with school or textbook's interpretation of style.

If I once stated, that Performance Art is criticizing Performance Art; and that every performance should be (could be) defining Performance Art; furthermore, (here I will sound like a charlatan ) could be the manifestation of a New Art which means, it becomes a total, permanent, unconditional creation (Art), (damn me, I will continue),- then, would one be surprised to discover that as a result of that, a style will emerge. Especially if we the add to this yet another condition the individuality of an artist and his spiritual suspension in time. At this point in my argumentation I can start letting go, I can bargain, but I have at least stated my stake. I know very well how costly this kind of risky pronouncement can be; One looses one's friends or at least they start to avoid oneself.

The iconography of Performance Art; It would be interesting to trace the development of such Art through this perspective; to connect in parallel its phases of development are those of other artforms. Without doubt, in the most expansive period of conceptual oral art, Performance Art is stylistics, in terms of content, objects and iconography for examples performances could be found conceptual and minimalist. Based on this, one could charge the performers, as anyone else, with stylization, of course, stylization comes with fashion. And there was a time when Performance Art itself was fashionable as well.

The hardest to achieve in art is ones own expression, language and iconography. That which once was an inner realm can become a world of its own, its own reality of Art. We live in a time of exceptional ease in the accomplishment of an image, their proliferation, manipulation and distribution. We can see that this ease and proliferation creates a bubble void of any message. A bubble of civilization, flashes of mindlessness, kitsch and loudness. Total Nihilism. The multimedia technology does not enrich any artistic iconography, nor does it reveal any secrets of the image, it does not enlighten or clarify. It multiplies and accelerates, makes it more accessible. It channels, insults and becomes trivial. The suffering becomes comical, the laughter - tragic. That which once constituted the iconography of values of our culture, religion, myth is and beliefs; what we once respected- is now taken advantage of and subverted- deprived of meaning, value and origin. Many young artists, unconsciously and mindlessly contribute to that procedure, fulfilling it and ennobling it with their irony, arrogance and subversion. Maybe, that's is why the Art of Sculpture is more respected at the moment. Sculpture conveys material, longevity, mass and the force needed in the process. Maybe also because, there is in the stone and metal, embedded the illusion of permanence. Thus, not another eluding image in the flow of information but the contact with an enduring element. The viewer will at least have enough satisfaction of witnessing some long-lasting in which he can carve his own signature - a message for the posterity.

I here gave evidence of my sarcasm only to emphasize the context for the iconography of Performance Art. It might be hard to believe that such a thing can be distinguished. Searching through various publications devoted to Performance Art, one can notice that the most recurring theme is the naked body of the artist. The use of nudity in Performance Art was not only practiced by performers connected to the Body Art" movement, artists that tried to deal with problems of psycho-sexual nature, practitioners of the fashionable trend political or sexual correctness" but also by the most respected and acknowledged performers. For the last mentioned group, nudity was a point of departure and the most fundamental signifier of Performance Art. There is then no possibility to characterize the use of nudity through a common denominator. Neither am I going to use my literary talents to try to translate the nudity of man into a set of possible metaphors, symbolic measures, the mythology and the metaphysics of the human body. It would be foolish to classify all of the uses of nudity mentioned above into the category of exhibitionism. I remember the determination of Jerzy Beres, arriving to Lublin in 1973, when stating his intention to undress". I also remember my own anxiety and responsibility as a curator of this `manifestation'. And even though I have never performed naked, I will do so if necessary. That means, when I will acknowledge its necessity for a particular situation. This also means that psychological or aesthetic reasons alone are insufficient.

Nudity means first and foremost a lack of costume; The rejection of stylistic and aesthetic intentions or tonalities. The second most common visual element of Performance Art is a casually dressed performer which also connotes the lack of costume . That is to say its neutrality and invisibility. It emphasizes movements, activities, contexts, decisions, rhythms and patterns of behavior. This can be understood as a lack of signifier, lack of an image, a void of information, without specification and explanation. What follows is then the most simple elements: of nature: Dusts, liquids, solids; water, blood, fire. The light and darkness. Life and death. Birds, fishes, animals and reptiles. Dead and alive. The essence of a thing, rather than its image. The use, advantage and function, superfluousness-and paradox - Traits which can be seen, but nevertheless are without appearance.

Technical appliances by these performers treated with disrespect. Technologies are maliciously laughed at through the misuse and disregard for their potentials.

When I thus search for an iconographical meaning for my performance, I ask myself and the world a philosophical question. Both that I make use of and that I disregard are the philosophical answers, expressing my relationship to the world and not my perception" thereof. This was clear when I made use of a set of signifiers commenting on the contempory, champion" (this set of signifiers contained elements based on the iconography of the Golgata´s way)

The accessories which I found use for my performances fishes, birds, sculls, feathers, blood, urine, water do not only belong my realm of creativity but also carry different meaning than the same accessories used in the works of other artists.

The Performance artists attempt to investigate matters in depth: not only the appearance is important - weather they like the choosen element or not - but also what the particular element represents, triggers, its origins, its use, its meaning, its importance or triviality, etc.

From this description one can conclude that iconography and stylistics of Performance Art are time less. In the light of the common understanding of what style is, it is an `Art without a style'. One can hardly distinguish any canons in Performance Art, render it mannerist or submit it to a fashionable artistic trend. The body of a

human, animal, fish or a bird, fire and water, do not express meaning of time, they are governed by their own duration of existence. Abandoning a style can indicate acquiring a universal, permanent form. But in fact, it means that either the form or style are inadequate measures for this discipline or that the Performance Art itself has generated a new terminology. This would then directly result from the introduction of a new reality, one that artists previously did not reflected upon.

The first example in line - a mirror. The mirror reflects the image of reality, but the reflected (transformed) in-lage is not stylistically nor formally transformed. The sole transformation has yet occurred (and lasts). To continue this thought one will conclude that the form of the mirrored reflection is also that which I have observed and experienced. I do not transform this experience (I do not paint it, neither describe it) but the transformation occurs by itself, in my mind. Noticing, observing, experiencing, I acknowledge it by understanding it, I feed myself with energy. This energy is then consumed and transforrned by my generators of individuality. This is how I feed my creative process. The most energy absorbing task a man take upon himself. This is the direct relationship between the acquired and consumed energy that is then channeled into a creative work.

(In most cases I write about what is known to me, but here I am entering an unexplored pathway which I penetrate intuitively. There is a possibility that matters are not exactly as I would like to see them.)

I am wondering about the energetistic balance of the creation the universe consists of, and this little of the world, portion that the artists give away". I am also wondering about the disintegration. Whether the energy channeled into the work of art (being the essence of the work) remains in it forever or whether it is being transformed into a different form of existence. Whether it disintegrates irretrievably (for example when the artwork is destroyed). We cannot forget that we, ourselves, are also of a particular kind of artwork". An again, only a little part of us comes from us. Would it be otherwise, that a human being would be a result of selfcreation - people would not differ so much from each other. A human, is therefore created as a result of different influences, unknown creators, without lessening the role of the self. Trying to depart from such an important and unapproachable, for a human mind, subject (such as the secrets of creation), I attempt to grasp, for a moment, that which is constantly in motion, under continuous transformation. So that not even my own mind can in the end agree with that which I myself just previously wrote.

This is all to prove that even though the individuality is never complete, that it is fleeting and flexible, physically, psychologically and intellectually - considering all influences and external circumstances - an individual can be so defined, meaningful and stabile that, as it happened, it influenced the deeds of the world.

It is only now that one can see the praxis for Rodins definition of Le style c'est l'homme". All of that which is interchangeable within a human's mind guarantees the convergence of time in style. Simultaneously it guarantees the dynamics of the system. Perhaps, someone will appreciate the discovery of a new, three dimensional and dynamic understanding of the term slyle, as opposed to the old which is concerned with surface and outline".

Now I shall return to the iconography of Performance Art. The image in Performance Art serves as a form of patnership, i.e. does not fill a decorative, tempting or eluding function. The way I use an image is to fulfill, clarify and explain myself And that is precisely why the image is so important and so hard to achieve. Very often the whole Performance is focused upon the fact that I do adopt the object and how I handle it (for example a sphere of iron, a branch, a steel pole, a bird feather, or '1/2'- one half, as a sign). I take, select something from my surrounding- environment and make use" of it. I use it in accordance with, or rather its given function. I use it creatively which means I turn it into an instrument or carrier medial for my activity. There is an unlimited amount of these aforementioned `carriers' media. (this is precisely why professionals" stay away from Performance Art).

To use an object in accordance with its given function is less creative". The greater gap between the intentional function of an object, and the use assigned to it by the artists, the greater is the consternation and misunderstanding, the greater tension. This brings us to the form", to Art".

Art and form acts upon us in a magical and irrational way. It allows us to set foot in the world that we never entered The accessories which I found use for my performances fishes, birds, sculls, feathers, blood, urine, water do not only belong my realm of creativity but also carry different meaning than the same accessories used in the works of other artists.

The Performance artists attempt to investigate matters in depth: not only the appearance is important - weather they like the choosen element or not - but also what the particular element represents, triggers, its origins, its use, its meaning, its importance or triviality, etc.

From this description one can conclude that iconography and stylistics of Performance Art are time less. In the light of the common understanding of what style is, it is an `Art without a style'. One can hardly distinguish any canons in Performance Art, render it mannerist or submit it to a fashionable artistic trend. The body of a

human, animal, fish or a bird, fire and water, do not express meaning of time, they are governed by their own duration of existence. Abandoning a style can indicate acquiring a universal, permanent form. But in fact, it means that either the form or style are inadequate measures for this discipline or that the Performance Art itself has generated a new terminology. This would then directly result from the introduction of a new reality, one that artists previously did not reflected upon.

The first example in line - a mirror. The mirror reflects the image of reality, but the reflected (transformed) in-lage is not stylistically nor formally transformed. The sole transformation has yet occurred (and lasts). To continue this thought one will conclude that the form of the mirrored reflection is also that which I have observed and experienced. I do not transform this experience (I do not paint it, neither describe it) but the transformation occurs by itself, in my mind. Noticing, observing, experiencing, I acknowledge it by understanding it, I feed myself with energy. This energy is then consumed and transforrned by my generators of individuality. This is how I feed my creative process. The most energy absorbing task a man take upon himself. This is the direct relationship between the acquired and consumed energy that is then channeled into a creative work.

(In most cases I write about what is known to me, but here I am entering an unexplored pathway which I penetrate intuitively. There is a possibility that matters are not exactly as I would like to see them.)

I am wondering about the energetistic balance of the creation the universe consists of, and this little of the world, portion that the artists give away". I am also wondering about the disintegration. Whether the energy channeled into the work of art (being the essence of the work) remains in it forever or whether it is being transformed into a different form of existence. Whether it disintegrates irretrievably (for example when the artwork is destroyed). We cannot forget that we, ourselves, are also of a particular kind of artwork". An again, only a little part of us comes from us. Would it be otherwise, that a human being would be a result of selfcreation - people would not differ so much from each other. A human, is therefore created as a result of different influences, unknown creators, without lessening the role of the self. Trying to depart from such an important and unapproachable, for a human mind, subject (such as the secrets of creation), I attempt to grasp, for a moment, that which is constantly in motion, under continuous transformation. So that not even my own mind can in the end agree with that which I myself just previously wrote.

This is all to prove that even though the individuality is never complete, that it is fleeting and flexible, physically, psychologically and intellectually - considering all influences and external circumstances - an individual can be so defined, meaningful and stabile that, as it happened, it influenced the deeds of the world.

It is only now that one can see the praxis for Rodins definition of Le style c'est l'homme". All of that which is interchangeable within a human's mind guarantees the convergence of time in style. Simultaneously it guarantees the dynamics of the system. Perhaps, someone will appreciate the discovery of a new, three dimensional and dynamic understanding of the term slyle, as opposed to the old which is concerned with surface and outline".

Now I shall return to the iconography of Performance Art. The image in Performance Art serves as a form of patnership, i.e. does not fill a decorative, tempting or eluding function. The way I use an image is to fulfill, clarify and explain myself And that is precisely why the image is so important and so hard to achieve. Very often the whole Performance is focused upon the fact that I do adopt the object and how I handle it (for example a sphere of iron, a branch, a steel pole, a bird feather, or '1/2'- one half, as a sign). I take, select something from my surrounding- environment and make use" of it. I use it in accordance with, or rather its given function. I use it creatively which means I turn it into an instrument or carrier medial for my activity. There is an unlimited amount of these aforementioned `carriers' media. (this is precisely why professionals" stay away from Performance Art).

To use an object in accordance with its given function is less creative". The greater gap between the intentional function of an object, and the use assigned to it by the artists, the greater is the consternation and misunderstanding, the greater tension. This brings us to the form", to Art".

Art and form acts upon us in a magical and irrational way. It allows us to set foot in the world that we never entered before. This is a Garden of Eden from which no-one expelled us, we escaped it ourselves (aging) because we prefer objects that are concrete, real" and verified. Every once in a while, I ask myself a question which's answer I fear to `know'. I wonder whether the present world is yet another variation of chaos or despite everything, it wich evolve into some kind of order, Culture. I wonder whether we evolve, or degenerate. Whether we can only learn from wars or disasters which let us regain our senses every once in a while, until everything goes back to the void, where unknown forces against all the reasoning push the humanity down into chaos....

When I go through the waste in my basket, I can always manage to utilize its content/ bits of information. And this is what I can foresee in the near future: It will be a time of wholesalers in Art. And such Art submits to the same laws as the rubbish in a wastebasket. The iconographic trash will only achieve the value of an Art commodity when the value is dictated by wholesalers. Anonymous, faceless creativity which will be transported in containers from one World Exposition" to another, to artfairs, biennials, triennials... This is a bad time for artists, but even worse for philosophers. In compliance with the nature of paradox, may-be my prediction regarding a philosophy after Art" will come true. (I publicly announced it in Kolobrzeg twenty years ago).

I go through the waste in the basket once again, and what clarifies is the role, the space and the task of the Art of Performance, in an iconograhic and philosophical sense. (hehe ... no other artistic discipline has such plea maker, and that irritates!)

The periphery, the so called B-Art can appear far more important than we are ready to admit. On a closer look - I would like to imply that the interest in the Art of Performance, the demand for it, will be re-emerging in times of historical turning points; When the Wholesalers Art" will fade in interests, become commonplace, and the wholesalers will be threatened by bank-ruptcy and when a newly promoted trend will not trigger an expected interest and achieve sufficient income. The performers will serve as cleaners, sweepers or even exterminators of this refuse. And this might even be a role to envy?

And again, I go through the waste in my basket one more time. The rubbish flows to the top. The rubbish which is an anti-message. The iconographic trash is mute of any message. I assume that not everyone is eluded or blinded by the massmedia, yet; that the wholesalers will not make puplic disgusted with Art. I assume that not the whole mob wants to be called a mob. I assume then, that Art will have admirers and supporters who will search it for a message. And it should be given to them. In the purest form. Without coquetry, hardship or clownery. Only a work of art can carry a pure message (I know that this an extreme conclusion). A pure message is the greatest form of art, it is nearly unreachable. It has to be given directly, straight in once face. Only such a message will still be believable. Does this bring us back to Performance Art? From this we can conclude yet another imperative: In the face of such a direct message a viewer is given the highest ennoblement, paid the highest respect. An artist can not be here seen as an idol, trickster or a puppet that fools the viewers on money in the limelight. He is just like anybody else. He is simply a man. This results in the imperative of freedom. To be a man is to pay a price for freedom. It is quite the opposite of what we were used to think. My pleas will not only irritate the opponents, but they also worry myself. I wonder weather I do not exaggerate, weather it all makes sense. The Art is an ideal being but in its materialization it recedes from the absolute, the grandzero, the black square, the great blue, nothingness, the leap into the void, 4' 33" of silence and many other thresholds of Art have already been established. We have entered into the other side of the mirror. We are continuing the search alone, unlike before, without the same fate in the never-ending possibility of progress. What now? The search has been canceled. So many volunteers! S'il vous plait, Go ahead, consume! No one maintains (a Kindness) that there is nothing more to search for, nothing more to discover: even within ourselves. It was only concluded not to be profitable. One makes more profit dealing with wholesale where the mob is the best customer. Here again, I have to enter the subject of Performance Art (what a persistence) - that entrance is like a discrete doorway to the unknown part of a palace; like a fever, or loss of consciousness. Where am I? I try to regain my senses. I wonder weather I still am part of this reality. Is this the reality of the end of the twentieth century?

do not intend anyone to follow me. What if I will break my neck? I follow my own understanding in a direction that is determined by logic consequences of my experiences. It is not an experiment. I will warn you, if you will not be sure of something. I know what I know, and the faith does not need justification. It is a calling of destiny. One can not hesitate, here. I discovered a crack, a defile leading to the real world, which, still not traded out, is awaiting us. This defile is a critical quality. And a critical quality is a point in an unstable balance. It does not guarantee a success. In fact it does not guarantee anything. Perhaps, it is a gamble.

I myself would characterize and qualify Performance Art as Art that gets established through reflecting (criticizing) on itself. It is someone or something that was placed under such a consequence has a sufficient `ability' to pronounce his own usefulness and foresee the outcome. And that is the way to create main principles and descriptive definition of a subject that was not defined or characterized before. Once upon a time there were very many essays and theoretical dissertations written in reference to the Art of Painting. It did no harm to this discipline, but on the contrary it constituted the transformation of Painting as craft, into an independent spiritual practice, field of knowledge and science, and permanent source of distinction of different national cultures. And now at the end of the 20th Century as a result of marketing everything possible, Art of Painting is given status of a commodity, still named `art', but classified to the sphere of art business", to the extend that to talk about Painting with philosophical solemnity becomes pitifully oldfashioned quite like a soulful love in the porno-shop. This is not of a threat to Performance Art, thanks to its inner structure, which I have already proven.

Since I myself set highest demands for art so disrespected, as Performance art is, and charge it with significant duties I would not object if sometime in the future some one will like to bring back the splendair to the Art of Painting, `learning' from what I wrote about Performance Art..

So far, the dabs of/at contemporary art learn from foreign exchange office/shop counters, and at shows of pure-bred dogs.

And one more `unrealistic' theoretical postulate, - but if something is possible to think of, it is possible to realize at least in a small part -What I have in mind is `total creativity', which means an activity where every act of creation would manifest a new art. The knowledge of the improvisational arts (ex. jazz) let us get accustomed to such a possibility. However, new art can not be programmed, though it can result (unnoticeable?) from the process of practicing it, from a way of living and creating. The discipline of the highest degree, and the autonomy of the individual are the conditions that give the new ad an appearance of verisimilitude. This appearance is given to the new Art, or simply artistic creativity (as I understand it), no matter in what form or discipline it is practiced. New Art is always accompanied by fear. Since we do not know the field which we have entered and what awaits us there. The unrest of the explorers. An artist who yet doesn't know what he has done, what he has gotten himself into"- is an easy subject to scoff. This unrest is not an egoistic anxiety- when I am wondering about the evaluation that awaits me-it is a dreamy kind of unrest. When one is carried by the unknown forces towards an unknown destiny. So, one side of the consciousness demands the awakening, and the other wants the dream to everlast. Art in the reality of life" !? That is an indiscretion and dissonant. Our age scrupulously exploits thie capacity of the intellect, the efficiency and productivity of the practical reasoning, a direct pragmatism. In other words, the dominance of the stiff interestedness above one's loss in the world of secrets and wonders. Therefore, when one efficiently operates with perfected mechanisms of sociotechnics and money turnover, he can deliver art on demand, accustomed to the needs of the international dealer's syndicates. In order to maintain the control over so cheerfully fabricated art, prices of often young but very average artists are raised above the level of acceptance, and the `political correctness' as well as national privileges are precisely respected. Thus, the effectively manipulated scum, became a superior category of official art, protected by the power of establishment. Perhaps in some time we will get used to the fact that qualities such as: `efficiency', `convenience/readiness', `marketability' or even venality", become the conimonly accepted merits of international art. I am, in fact, brought up with the Culture of the 19th Century which means that for me it is obvious -to idealize just that- Culture. But it is very likely that I am left alone in this belief Culture, or rather the imitation or infection of Culture can very well become a weapon against Culture itself in the age of satellite transmissions.

The Art of Performance got excluded from the artistic spectacles of the World. A month ago (it is now August 1994) I received a notice of cancellation from the Centre Pompidou in Paris, which had earlier planned to host an international review of Performance Art. The reason? a lack of fund for this event. Immediately, I came to think of an external influence which had intervened - rejecting the official acknowledgment for this discipline of Art.

But even if under persistent pressure, conscious, loathing and intimidation or simply for a sake of ordinary camouflage- the term `Performance Art' will be withdrawn from a common use, though this kind of human activity, so obstinately described and defended by my writings will not cease to exist. It will be needed by the artists themselves, (same as unconquered mountain peak, bears its conquers) as well as - I can claim that without fear, by many other people who will search for the kind of creativity, which can offer them a direct contact with art and an artist (on equal terms).

This kind of Art" - differs from many other artistic disciplines, since it has no limitations that would draw a line of what is `legal', permissible, important or unimportant. No one stated (no one dared to) the conditions on which an art work presented by the artist could be acknowledged or not acknowledged by somebody else. One could describe this situation as quite comfortable, nonchalant and evasive.

Taking in consideration all imperatives of Art that I mentioned or omitted, one can understand why it is so difficult and rare. I do not determinate the exterior, physical exponents of this genre, in reference to substance, space and time, as for example in painting, music or poetry. In my opinion (in a crazy and groundless opinion) Performance Art can be distinguished in terms of the essence of the matter". To use a metaphor - one can portray it as a degree of density, specific weight" - of a work of art, the relation of `pure' art to the content of the work, to what unavoidable yet superfluous, for there is no ideal art.

With a good will, we can 'sense' a position of a certain artistic fact (work of art) on a theoretical axis of co-ordinates where we can find a scale: Non-Art » Art » essence of Art » idea of Art » universal spirit » Absolute. As you see I attempt the possibilities to enter through the artistic fact into the sphere of universal spirit.

Am I get carried away? Or else, more modest, I should apply the criterion of `gradation' in reference to the scale: from flat-esthetic" to time/space-philosophical". In visual arts such `gradation' was mention in relation to the scale from functional art" to pure art". Except that what then was seen as `pure art' - after the experience of conceptual art - we would classify, now, as art limited by a certain function, therefore being outside of the sphere determined by aksioma for art, (Robert Barry's collection or even my own 'Traktat' from 1973), or if we consider very rigid conditions - being non art.

Simple, perhaps rhetoric question: whether there will be more art made if we raise the level of standards or less, if we lower our demands?

When I am writing about Performance Art", I do not about it as a discipline in which I am personally involved. It is a term that generates a nostalgia and meditation over what I would like to see, or bring about, myself. I do not represent any group, ideology, orientation, which I would have desperately defended, like a politician of unpopular party. Desire for art - feeds the will to create. My pleas will not support art too much - if I am to be alone. Despite my favoring of Performance Art, it is not difficult to notice that I am able to pull out and describe the conditions that create prospects for Art in general. Every kind of Art has to be preceded and conformed by the act of creation, and the independence and exeptionality of this act, I demand.

In the end, no matter what will they say about me, I let myself summarize the practice described above, as the discipline of disciplines". I am not interested in inventing names for their sake, I want to direct and clarify speculations about essence of this so indefinable and unascertainable matter. Discipline" implies practice, soldiers drill, and paternal severity. In today's unrestrained world, one would find use for some discipline, if only in terms of thinking about art. Discipline, understood this time as rigid principles, is a way leading to our freedom and a main condition on which we can demand our right to be free. World, the civilization, human world, produces many temptations, offers many attractions for the price of one's freedom. An artist, who requests unlimited freedom to act and use privileges is given it when unconsciously or consciously takes upon himself a role of a clown in a selfdetermined shelter/asylum. The true freedom is only possible when an artist knows the limits of independence and within those limits determinates his responsibilities. Beyond that sphere is an area of interest in which every privilege, award or promotion, is being paid for on the expense of one's independence. It is better if one gives up certain goods and pleasures himself, rather to be forced to give away what one desires most. And it is a main principle of freedom in art. You can demand more on the terms of a madman, fool or an idiot. One needs constantly remind and explain sense of life in freedom" - since every authorities, even these 'democratic', for its own comfort, would like to see a man as a cretin and enslaved. I cannot see any difference of mental class between these that care "mourning" for Kim Ir Sen, Maradonna or Fred Mercury, even though all of them are doing it out of their 'own will'.

My writing about art is compressed with an idea of preparation for Art (of Art, for creating Art). And in this respect I am more concern with preparation than with the creation itself. Simply because the creation, if it occurs, does not need a description, and the art itself will endure without my appeals, warnings or advises.

Definition of a subject, determines the way of preparation. The preparation (at least partially) defines the subject and remains at its service. The latter relation is superior, since the superfluous discipline (as well as superfluous knowledge) does less harm than limitation (by creating categories or repelling) of subject of investigation. In this case, the subject refers to one of the forms of existence of Art. The Existence of art is more attractive when less clear and undefinable. More distant it is, the more alluring it becomes.

Once, during the meeting in the L. Wyczolkowski Museum in Bydgoszcz, I stated that depending of the time of the day, the external and internal conditions, the mood, and the qaulity of my perception, - I conceive and pronounce Art differently. Some time it is placed further, in extraterrestrial space, and sometime it is right next to me, seemingly elusive. And adequately to `where it is positioned' and `what state it's in, at the moment, I have turn into somebody else and act differently. You catch a fly that sits on your nose, in a different way that you would hunt the angels. Therefore the `preparation' for Art - if we intend to confront it more than once - same as the subject of the preparation, has to be placed in the net of co-operatives of different spaces and dimensions. The preparation that extends our vagueness and ignorance, which turn into our chance, expectation and Potential. To be someone else than yourself, at the moment when it `is', got grasped by existence. Being `someone else' for this that is never 'the same'. So..... in this way we are approaching this that is removed, and by approaching it, we make it distant, and by removing it we cause it to be even more attractive, thus approaching and more unreal, to which we are preparing and become less prepared, but more free, that means less limited....

Sandomierz, 18 of January 1994.