Performing Arts and Performances

Jacob asked: "is there a way to distinguish a performing art from the performance? Can a dance exist without being danced?"

This question brings up some intriguing discussion points, particularly where morality stands. As I may have made clear before, my own view on morality is that an art object is amoral, as only actions can have a moral aspect to them. This would seem to imply that there is, in fact, a way for a performance, as an action, to be moral or immoral.

I do not believe that this is the case, that a performance can be moral or immoral. After all, a performance is merely the acting out of directions given by another. The particular actions of a performer while performing may be immoral, but this does not make the performance itself immoral.

How can this distinction be made? A performance is a presentation of a work of art. In this sense, the performance itself is no different than the display of a painting or sculpture. It is a unique presentation in and of itself, and is therefore just as much an amoral object for aesthetic appreciation as the painting or sculpture.

The question of improvisation falls in to this same category. It is a display of a work of art, and is, in and of itself, amoral. I shall return to this later in regards to Jacob's second question.

However, the particular actions of a performer can be moral or immoral, just as the affects of a work on an audience can be moral or immoral while keeping the piece itself amoral. If, for example, a play calls for the rape of a character, and the actor playing the rapist, during the performance, actually rapes the actor playing the rape victim, this particular action on the part of the actor playing the rapist is immoral, but this does not make the play, or the performance, immoral.

What of improvisation in terms of Jacob's second question? "Can a dance exist without being danced," or, in a similar vein, can an improvised jazz performance exist without being performed? The simple answer to this is, "yes, it can." However, it is not a work of art until it is performed. In the same way, a painting can exist in the artist's mind, but it does not exist as a work of art until the artist actually paints it.

To end with a question: Does the intention behind a work to act as a stimulant for a particular response, i.e. emotional or physical, preclude the possibility that it has aesthetic and artistic merit?