Print

Art, performing

DOI
10.4324/9780415249126-M034-1
Versions
DOI: 10.4324/9780415249126-M034-1
Version: v1,  Published online: 1998
Retrieved March 28, 2024, from https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/art-performing/v-1

2. Works for performance

In the case of works created for performance, artists (such as playwrights, composers, choreographers and authors) produce either instructions (in oral form, or in the form of a script or score) that performers execute or a model instance that they emulate in delivering instances of the works. A work for performance is complete when its score, script or model is complete. Such pieces are instantiated in their various performances. The works are distinct from their performances; they have been variously characterized as universals, types, kinds or classes (see Art works, ontology of §2). Pieces represented by a score or script might never be performed; that is, they might have no instances. Theorists sometimes distinguish performance for an audience from rehearsal, practising or private enactments. What should be acknowledged is that the activity takes its point from generating and publicly transmitting instances of given works.

In the case of works for performance, artists’ instructions should be interpreted in light of the relevant performance practices; what can be presupposed might not be mentioned or notated, despite its being required, and not all that is mentioned or notated will be mandatory. To perform a work, performers typically produce an instance of the work by following the artist’s instructions or model, or by copying other performances derived from those. (If a gust of wind by chance produces a sound acoustically indistinguishable from some performance of a Beethoven symphony, that sound-event would neither be a performance nor would it otherwise instantiate Beethoven’s work.) A performance of a given work that contains some departures from the artist’s instructions might still be regarded as a performance of that work, provided the work remains recognizable in the performance. To the extent that it diverges (whether this is intended by the performer or not) from the artist’s determinative instructions, a performance is inaccurate or unauthentic as an account of the artist’s work.

The relevant conventions and artists’ notations underspecify or do not determine many of the features displayed in a performance of the work, and where performers emulate a model instance, the realization of many details is by convention left at their discretion. Where performers are left free, they are constrained only by the wider conventions of style or genre. The level of the performer’s creative autonomy varies within and between the performing arts; jazz dancers have more liberty in their actions than do ballerinas. But, even in those performing arts that provide highly detailed instructions, many crucial choices are left to performers; for instance, many aspects of speech delivery and gesture are not indicated by the playwright. It is by their treatment of those matters on which performers are free that equally faithful (but different) interpretations are distinguished. A single interpretation or production might receive more than one performance.

Though the work is distinct from the score, script or model instance produced by the artist, I hold that the identity of the work derives from the instructions notated or implicit in the model. These, in turn, are identified in relation to the artist and the period of creation. In that case, one cannot perform the work except by performing it as its creator’s, and doing this requires faithfulness in the relevant respects (as determined by artistic conventions of the genre at the time) to the instructions produced by the artist. A performance can instantiate a given work only if it is faithful or authentic to the appropriate degree. I claim that we are interested in performances primarily as performances of artists’ works and that this is how they are advertised and represented. (This is not to say, though, that we shun works from unknown provenances; a speculative account of a work consistent with the conventions of its time usually provides something worth considering, if not definitively its artist’s work.)

The history of its performances and the constitution of the intended audience also are relevant in assessing the degree of faithfulness appropriate for a performance, as Jerrold Levinson has argued 1987). The first performance of a work should aim at a high degree of faithfulness, as should a performance directed at novices. Where works are well known, as are Shakespeare’s plays in the West, much of the performer’s duty of faithfulness has been discharged already; other desiderata, such as contemporary relevance, novelty and verve, become more prominent. Performances are evaluated in terms of the life, coherence, variety and interest they bring to the work, and these features are relative to the audience’s prior experience of that work or similar ones, as well as to the materials furnished by the work’s creator.

Stan Godlovitch (1993) specifies the following conditions for the integrity of live performances: only one work is performed at a time; its proper sequence is respected, as is the indicated rate of delivery; the performance is continuous, without unjustified breaks; performers comply with the appropriate roles (and do not, for example, swap parts midway through the work). Also, the audience should be in a position to receive the entire performance in every detail. Note that such conditions are required by the view presented earlier: the primary aim of performance is to deliver the artist’s work, as specified, to an audience.

Print
Citing this article:
Davies, Stephen. Works for performance. Art, performing, 1998, doi:10.4324/9780415249126-M034-1. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis, https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/art-performing/v-1/sections/works-for-performance.
Copyright © 1998-2024 Routledge.

Related Articles