Research Catalogue

The following peer review was presented to the author during the process and has influenced the final exposition. It is here presented in a slightly edited form.

Anonymous Reviewer

The exposition clearly addresses the theme of the issue (“How to do Things with Performance?”), as it asks the question what “things” performances contain, what the conditions for this existence is, and what that means for our engagement with them. This is a highly relevant question, and the exposition can potentially add insights to these questions.

However, some of the arguments in the exposition are quite implicit. For instance, it is not specified what kind of performance that we may be talking about (any stage performance, performance art, musical performance, other?), and if the ontological qualities of performance that are addressed are equally part of all kinds of performance. This may be meant as a deliberate openness, but it may make the argument stand less clearly.

A similar deliberate openness seems to be at stake in the relation between the opening of the article and the main body of the article. The opening highlights some of the arguments in the text, that, however, are not always followed all the way through. For instance, the reference/parallel made to capitalism may make sense in relation to some of the thinkers addressed, but the consequences of it are left very open in the exposition.

This openness, may also be the result of how a large investigation has been summarized in a short space, leaving some of the transitions slightly abrupt. For the exposition to “do” more in the discussion of “how to do things with performance”, it may be an advantage to specify the circumstances of the argument further.

The most interesting aspect of the exposition, is the way it argues for the ontological nature of things in performance, being “something” that exists in and of itself, or as it is stated: “The radical practice of performance thinking is not a reflection of the Real, but it is the living, in performance”. This of course, adds to an existing discussion, but it does so from an angle that seems to have contemporary relevance.

However, this argument could be strengthened in three ways (in my reading):

- By clarifying which questions that are being addressed

- By showing how these questions are anchored in practice (see further later on)

- By narrowing the scope of the argument slightly (a lot of different thinkers/ideas are traversed and the transitions are often quite short)

The contribution has the potential of adding new insights to the discussion, but a slightly more explicit line of argument would help this come through even more clearly.

Artistic practice lies at the centre of the research, but this is not made clear until late in the exposition. Though the exposition has relevance through its philosophical approach as such, I think this is a pity, as it would help clarify why these questions are important, and how the author has arrived at this way of thinking.

The theme and the outcomes of the exposition are clearly research-oriented, in the sense that they are directed at understanding the medium of performance. However, the methods of the research that has led to the exposition are not addressed, which may result in the impression that the philosophical reflection about performance has been more central than researching from within performance.

It seems as if this is simply a question of the way “weight” is distributed in the exposition, and that the insights of artistic research practice could be given more space and weight.

The exposition is of relevance in several related fields, especially in performance philosophy, performance studies, artistic research and philosophy.

The exposition is clearly based in a relation between artistic practice and research, however it leaves this relation very implicit.

The submission contains a discussion of a particular issue. However, it is addressed quite broadly, and it is unclear from which perspective the author arrives at the issue (as an art practitioner or not, and which kind of artistic practice). This could be given more space in the exposition. For instance, it makes it difficult to see how the exposition contributes to the development of the art field as well as to performance philosophy.

The research is strongly contextualised in terms of the theoretical issues, and several philosophers’ ideas are addressed. However, as these philosophers are not always directly speaking about performance, what happens when their ideas are translated to a performance context is not addressed. Furthermore, as many different thinkers’ ideas are addressed in a short time, the transitions leave a lot open to the imagination of the reader. This may be on purpose, but it leaves some aspects of the argument very open.

Also, it is my impression that the artistic methods have contributed to the author’s way of thinking about performance, but this is not highlighted in the argument. The author may have exposed this in other contexts, and in that case for instance references to those expositions could be included. In the same way, there are few references to other artists’ work.

Nevertheless, it is an insightful and thorough, dense and complex form of thinking that is presented, which contributes to the contemporary thinking around the question of what performance does and how. The things mentioned here do not seem to be lacking in terms of process but have not been prioritized in the exposition. Instead, the dialogue with different philosophical thinkers is at the centre.

The design is legible and the navigation generally supports the context. There are several text fields with complementary explanations when it comes to the philosophical vocabulary. One suggestion (based on the above reflections) could be to add similar notes concerning the artistic methods and the artistic context of the work.

The submission presents highly interesting ideas about the ontology of performance, based on a complex set of ideas. When I (in the above comments) address the lack of weight given to the artistic practice, and the possibility of an even more explicit argumentation, it is not because there is any risk that the exposition is not thorough enough. On the contrary, it is because it is my impression that the contribution would stand more clearly if these elements were given slightly more weight. Furthermore, it would make it explicit how the submission engages with the field of performance. I think that is important, because the ideas presented are highly relevant to the field. The exposition is very dense, and some of the ideas (for instance the parallel to “capitalism”) could be communicated in separate expositions, so as to give each part of the line of thinking more space, making each step of thinking more transparent to the reader.

The complexity that I see as the strength of the submission, is in a certain way also its (luxurious) weakness, but one that can be addressed with a few revisions and clarifications.

The following peer review was presented to the author during the process and have influenced the final exposition. It is here presented in a slightly edited form.

Anonymous Reviewer

I am not familiar with the call for papers, but the exposition fits well in the context of “How to do things with performance” - both in terms of what it says and also how it says/does so.

The exposition explores the act of performance as a kind of thinking and places this in relation to questions of the real, of philosophy. Drawing on Laruelle and others, it proposes to think of performance philosophy as a form of decision that cuts into the fog of the real without determining or controlling it.

The exposition does not just speak from the point of view of experience in artistic practice but it speaks as an instance of performance practice itself. As such it is thought provoking on several relevant levels.

Artists and philosophers will be interested in the piece – providing the language is clarified in parts.

The method is sound but the language is problematic in parts as the whole piece is fairly self-referential and hermetically sealed. However, the piece clearly does not aim primarily to explain but rather to enact, which is fine and interesting. But it makes it particularly important that the language is grammatically reliable. Corrections must be carried out before the text is published. There are errors of syntax, grammar and punctuation. I can only give a list of examples (see section below). Ideally the text would be proofread carefully by a native English reader with some philosophical knowledge.

I always find it a bit of a disturbance that you cannot easily gain an overview of the text – without shifting the curser around and cutting bits out. And you cannot easily print the exposition. But this is a general observation about the site – not specific to this piece alone.

Generally, in this case, the layout works (after some time spent with it) and I like the different modes of text and image embedded into each other.

Language corrections are absolutely necessary.

This is an original and intriguing piece of writing (and exposition) that grows on the reader the longer they bear with it. It does not make for an easy encounter, and might challenge some readers’ assumption about what text is or can do. It does not explain or transmit in any straight-forward way, but makes an interesting case (borne of experience and witnessing) of how to approach a thinking of performance – as an engagement with “something” on the cusp, threshold, boundary of what can be said or determined.