Art
Students Name
Institution of Affiliation
Course Title
Date
The performance artists Guillermo Gomez and Coco Fusco for two years have traveled through the world, performing the couple in the cage tour. They presented themselves as the unexposed Amerindians from an island in the Gulf of Mexico that had for five centuries been unnoticed by the rest of the world. The two voyaged through numerous western cities, calling their homeland Guatinau and them the Guatinauis. From watching the television to the sewing of the voodoo dolls, the couple performed traditional tasks while being displayed in the cage. They even made a spectacle out of it, placing a donation box outside the cage and offering to do various performances for free. The female Guatanaui would perform a traditional dance, and the male would tell conventional stories in a made up language. The two would also pose with visitors. Security guards stood next to the cage, and their primary job was to answer the questions asked by the visitors and as well as feeding the couple and taking them to the bathroom on leashes. Everything that the couple did was too palpably theatrical. The couple had their skulls measured, they were fed on bananas and were deemed as being a specimen. The reason behind is that all these were a characteristic specimen of the monkeys at a zoo being enclosed in a cage.
The documentary served to scrutinize the audiences’ responses to the particular display that was exhibited by the couple. What was so surprising was that a considerable portion of the audience believed in the authenticity of the couple. The intent was to create a commentary to which exaggerates the western perceptions of a primitive and a primordial other for a satirical and comedic edge, but it led to the realization of how prominent racist beliefs are in our postcolonial society. The documentary serves as an indirect proof that the colonial ideas, that compromise the notions of the non-westerns, still have penetration to the world to which we lived today. It is in fact that the ideas tie back to those of N’gugi, of how orature is consistently underplayed today because its origin and development took place in the colonized, or more primitive lands.
Another intriguing aspect was the incorporation of the discussion of morality, and the human beings were quite merely treating the other human people as exotic curiosities. There seemed to be a complete disregard for the notion on that they too were human beings, being of the same species, a similar body as well as a similar brain. It quite plainly serves to illuminate the underlying arrogance to which seemed to paralyze the people’s ability to question, analyze and to evaluate. The documentary also helps to challenge the conventional notions of performance to which revolves around line memorization as well as the rehearsed body movements and a stage in the auditorium. The kind of performance in the documentary was all the more potent for me as merely being in a particular location at a specific time, performing specific behaviors that were not rehearsed for a stage. It propelled the audience into a field similar to an auditorium or a theatre possibly even a more evocative one, while at the same time challenging them to rethink their roles in the society. Moreover, the audience hasn’t the slightest clue that what they are watching is indeed a performance, unlike in a theatre, making it all the more an intriguing experience to watch their responses as a third party.
The experiment resulted in a point that only a few individuals saw the display and the reason behind is that it was believable, the message that was supposed to be to be satirical in commentary did not translate well through the audience. It is true that when people are at the museum, they tend to think that whatever they are going to see is a fact and therefore turn off all the observational skepticism and automatically take whatever they see as being a fact. It did not result in massive fame for the couple nor did it become a staple in the modern American art. It was successful in being a satirical commentary and proved that people believe what they are told without the utilization of any rational thinking, especially when whatever is being said is confirmed by an expert.
In overall, the act did trigger a response, whether awe, sympathy or even outrage from the audience. It is however that the message to which the group was trying to convey, precisely the idea that it is a satirical message about conquering land and claiming it as your own, did not filter through the entire audience, to which resulted in some people believing to what they saw. The couple in the cage would undoubtedly satisfy the requirements of being considered art in the public interest piece because it took an issue affecting the society and manipulated it into an art form for the general public. However, there are two main reasons as to why the exhibition should be not be considered as an art. The first reason is that a majority of the people being the audience did not understand the message that was trying to be conveyed by the couple. Gomez-Pena and Fusco are preaching that conquering another area where there are already people is inhumane, drawing parallels between the discovery of America and being caged for display. There was no apparent connection to the audience took the exhibit at face value and didn’t understand the actual message. The second reason is that the premise is based on lies. There is no such island, and the couple dressed up to trick the audience. If the message were more explicit, then the people would not be fooled as easily, and therefore it could be considered as an art.
Reference
Fusco, C., & Heredia, P. (1993). The Couple in the Cage: A Guatinaui Odyssey; a Video. Third World Newsreel.
