THE DIGITAL ARTISTIC CYCLE IN PERFORMANCE ART EDUCATION

Marija Griniuk

doi:10.17770/sie2022vol1.6855

Authors

Marija Griniuk The University of Lapland (FI)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17770/sie2022vol1.6855

Keywords:

art academy education, digital artistic cycle, Lithuania, performance art, Vilnius Academy of Arts

Abstract

This research explores student performance art events in the current digital era. Public performance presentations by art students after the performance art course are intended to complete an artistic cycle. The artistic cycle in the digital era is divided into studio-based practice (when performance is planned, often in students’ home studios) and presentation in the digital space. For audience members, the experience of the performance artwork is significantly different in live and digital spaces since there is no possibility of touching the performer or items in the digital space. As a result, audience feedback for students differs greatly depending on whether the performance works are experienced live or virtually. Therefore, the present study suggests a new term of digital artistic cycle, which was developed after analysing a performance art course at Vilnius Academy of Arts, Kaunas Faculty in 2021. The data collected are the author’s notes from her observations and interviews with the facilitator of the performance art course. The data are analysed using keywords and categories. The results generated recommendations for performance art course facilitators regarding what tools should be used to complete an digital artistic cycle at universities and art academies.

Supporting Agencies

Thanks to the University of Lapland, Nordic Culture Point and Lithuanian Council for Culture. Also, thanks to Vaida Tamoševičiūtė, Ieva Bartuškaitė and Lilija Gotautaitė for letting the researcher work with the described case.

References

Burton, D. (2006). Exhibiting Student Art: The Essential Guide for Teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.

Griniuk, M. (2021). Arts-based action research on enhancing children’s creativity through affect within participatory performance art and performance pedagogy. Creativity Studies, 14(2), 577-592. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/cs.2021.13775

Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26(6), 4–10.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X026006004

Falk, J., & Dierking, L. (2000). Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Fischer-Lichte, E. (2008). The Transformative Power of Performance. New York: Routledge.

Leavy, P. (2018). Introduction to arts‑based research. In P. Leavy (Ed.), Handbook of arts-based research (p. 3–21). New York: Guilford Press.

Lepouras, G., Katifori A., Vassilakis C., & Charitos D. (2004). Real Exhibitions in a Virtual Museum. Virtual Reality 7, 120–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-004-0121-5

Schechner, R. (1977). Essays on Performance Theory: 1970– 1976. New York: Drama Book Specialists.

Schechner, R. (2013). Performance Studies. London: Routledge.

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American journal of evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.