HAPPENINGS: A STUDY
CASEY CHAMPION
APRIL 2009

Many shoppers begin to whistle in aisles of supermarket.
After a few minutes they go back to their shopping.

3 a.m. emptiness at a 24-hour washerette. Piles of clothes washed.
Turning cylinders, blue-white fluorescents.
Regularly on the half-hour, loud bunch of photogs
burst in, flash pix, leave. Home at five.

On another day, twenty or more flash-gun
cameras shoot off at same time all over
supermarket; shopping resumed.1

“Happenings…define an art form in which an action is extracted from the environment, replacing the traditional art object with a performative gesture rooted in the movements of everyday life.”2 In the late 1950s, after publishing “The Legacy of Jackson Pollock,” and his participation in a music composition class led by John Cage, Allan Kaprow developed a new type of performance art. These Happenings aimed at disturbing the automatic routines of random people nationally (and later, internationally). The works disrupted the foundational procedures of theatrics and performance art when they restructured the rules for viewers, participants, the role of scripts and the stage. They even maintained characteristics of the Dada nonmovement, bringing it to a post-war context. Many Happenings were not even intended for viewers or record, such as Household, 1964. Although these set precedents in art history by rewriting the rules in multiple disciplines, some Happenings were not effective as art and, in a sense, allowed the artists an excuse to create bad art.

What we must decide is whether we (as art critics, historians and viewers) can accept an art form that prohibits the allowance of an audience as the artist/participants perform. To do this, we must decide what art is defined as, and question how it is validated. The Oxford Dictionary clarifies it as “the creation of beautiful or thought-provoking works, e.g. in painting, music, or writing.”3 Surely art need not be beautiful, as we can see by Duchamp’s Fountain, 1917, or DuBuffet’s Volonté de puissance, 1946. However, if it is not going to be beautiful, art must be thought provoking. Although it is not necessary for art to be produced with the viewer in mind, it is necessary for a viewer to be able to see a piece of art and have an experience with it. This in turn validates the art.

In Kaprow’s Household 1964, the participants are performing a scripted event in the woods in which the men have erected a pile of junk as a phallic gesture, and the women lick jam off of a beat-up car before lighting it on fire. The nature of this performance was to challenge the concept of time, suggesting that art can be historical for its lack of permanence. Kaprow’s team calls this “planned obsolescence,”4 meaning it is intended to take on ephemerality. This also reaches Benjamin’s thought that art can only hold its true meaning at the time and place that it was meant to exist.

"Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence."5

While this performance arguably is worthy of an attempt to secure its place in history without the watering down of reproduction, it does not succeed in securing itself as a work of art. The work cannot be appreciated by onlookers because there are none. What’s more, this performance truly stereotypes the Hippie Culture for their supposed drug use and the range of thought while they are on these hallucinogens. Covering an old car with jam and proceeding to lick it off without the validation of observers displaces the artists from making a statement. Instead, they pretentious hippies, gathering in a field for fun.

Although ephemeral art can be effective in exposing temporality, Household is too restrictive in terms of who can participate and learn from the experience. This performance is infuriating because it gives the “artists” an excuse to create essentially bad art. Other happenings (such as Giveaway, 1968) are important and hold a valid place in the history of art because while being ephemeral, they have a place in affecting the viewer. People tend to live life with a sense of automatism. We treat our days with routine, acting as creatures of habit. When a Happening causes an interruption in this automatic habit, it is validated. Kaprow discusses how he and other performers set up a perfect banquet along a highway in Self-Service, 1967. Although there were participants and no participating viewers, the banquet surely interrupted the routine of several drivers along the highway until it was gone, causing them to reflect on what they saw.

"We set up a banquet in the Jersey marshes on the side of a busy highway – a complete banquet with food, wine, fruit, flowers and place-settings, crystal glasses and silver coins in the glasses. And we simply left it, never went back. It was an offering to the world: whoever wants this, take it."6

One emerging art historian from Columbia College Chicago commented: “...but there’s a difference between creating art and just hanging out,” in reference to Household. Participants in Household seemed to behold this unrealistic vision that by using artistic properties and working with a prominent artist/historian, they were indeed creating art. However, as previously mentioned, there is a difference between creating art and gathering with friends. The ephemeral quality, the performance, the script, props and ad-libbed spontaneity are arguably reasonable artistic qualities, which place this and other Happenings comfortably under the performance art category. However, a work of art needs to have viewers to validate it. Self-Service, Giveaway, and Pose are relevant historically because each of these affected viewers who came across them.
Two years after Jackson Pollock’s death, Allan Kaprow wrote “The Legacy of Jackson Pollock,” in it declaring that Pollock had destroyed painting, and nobody could return from where painting had left off. He examined Pollock’s work and Abstract Expressionism as a movement, writing that all of great characteristics of this movement were no longer revolutionary. Now it was all accepted and beloved by the art world. Abstract Expressionism and the art within were “now the clichés of college art departments. The innovations are accepted. They are becoming the part of textbooks.”7

Within this essay, Kaprow became very excited in his examination of the interactivity of Pollock’s art.

…To grasp Pollock’s impact properly, we must be acrobats, constantly shuttling between an identification with the hands and body that flung the paint and stood ‘in’ the canvas and submission to the objective markings, allowing them to entangle and assault us.8

This is the crux in Kaprow’s text, in which he discovers that art should be engaging the viewer interactively. The art should “entangle and assault,” allowing the viewer to move in and out as they please, but also provoking some time of action. It is at this point that Kaprow introduces the importance of the viewer taking on a different position within the functionality of the artwork.

But what I believe is clearly discernible is that the entire painting comes out at us (we are participants rather than observers)…9

Thus, shortly following this essay, Happenings were born. Kaprow used his art historical knowledge to motivate a brand new function for performance art, while radically upheaving what had been previously been practiced in art.

Kaprow’s Happenings are still important today. In 2008, the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles (MOCA) teamed up Museum of Contemporary Art, San Diego (MCASD) and college students to recreate Kaprow’s Happenings for a retrospective called “Allan Kaprow: Art As Life.” These Happenings were created with the allowance of viewers and are available as videos on www.youtube.com. The students used the Happenings to educate and engage the public. In Giveaway 2008, we see the performance effectively function as art when the students place teacups and plates in odd places around the city. This engages the public, as they later find out (for “return, photograph”) when they return to the sites to locate the items. The instructions they left for the viewers were to draw a chalk line around the plates and leave a message explaining what they would do with them. Some left the plates, some didn’t. One man said the plates were taken “to break bread with the homeless.”10 The students also came across a group of three young men, stopped on their daily walk and looking through a fence, staring at a broken plate with the chalk inscription “You can’t touch me!” This reinvention of Kaprow’s Happenings captured the true essence of the experience of these works. By stopping people on their daily routine and causing them to reflect over what they have encountered, the Happening truly becomes art.

Many artists and theorists come to different conclusions on the meaning of Happenings, on their place in art history, and on their validity as art. While some described it as “a purposefully composed form of theatre in which diverse alogical elements,”11 (Michael Kirby) which reminds of Dada; others define it as “a collage of situations and events occurring over a period of time in space.”11 (Al Hansen) Still yet, there are more definitions. However, by traversing out to a remote field and scripting a performance (which does not even follow the script) which lacks the observation of any viewers and only allows participants (Household) the performance is not effective. It lacks provocation of thought for anyone other than the artists. Furthermore, the act of dragging an old car out and licking jam off of it lacks any meaning without an onlooker to be affected by it. As such, these Happenings are important and effective in their engagement of the onlooker, as well as the cancellation of their everyday routine. Without this, the ritual moves to a gathering of friends, a “party” and is therefore invalidated in its efforts to be a work of art.

In a neighborhood, people inflate by mouth a
twenty-foot weather balloon. It is pushed through the streets
and buried in in a hole at the beach. The people leave it.

A long parade. Children and adults carry blank
posters and banners. Quiet rhythm on pots and pans.

People shout in subway just before getting off, leave immediately.1

1. Kaprow, Allan. “Self-Service: A Happening.” The Drama Review: TDR, Vol. 12, No. 3, Architecture/Environment (Spring, 1968), pp. 160-164.
2. http://www.moca.org/kaprow/index.php/2008/02/14/what-is-a-happening/
3. Oxford American Dictionary
4. Schechner, Richard and Kaprow, Allan. “Extensions in Time and Space, An Interview with Allan Kaprow.” The Drama Review: TDR. Vol. 12. No. 3, Architecture/Environment (Spring, 1968), pp. 155
5. Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction
6. Schechner, Richard and Kaprow, Allan. Extensions in Time and Space, An Interview with Allan Kaprow. The Drama Review: TDR. Vol. 12. No. 3, Architecture/Environment (Spring, 1968), pp. 153
7. Kaprow, Allan. “The Legacy of Jackson Pollock.” ArtForum.
8. Kaprow, Allan. “The Legacy of Jackson Pollock.” ArtForum.
9. Kaprow, Allan. “The Legacy of Jackson Pollock.” ArtForum.
10. MCASD Videos. “Allan Kaprow GIVEAWAY Reinvented.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4EdViFltgc 4:39-4:51
11. Higgins, Dick. “The Origin of Happening.” American Speech, Vol. 51, No. 3/4 (Autumn - Winter, 1976), pp. 268-271 (p270)

Allan Kaprow GIVEAWAY Reinvented, 17 May 2008




















Kaprow, Household 1964
































Kaprow POSE Reinvented 29 May, 2008



POSE Reinvented, May 2008



POSE Reinvented, May 2008



Fluids Reinvented 2008



Giveaway Reinvented 2008 (My favorite!)


[Editors Note: It is very interesting to note that Kaprow mentioned multiple times that the Happenings were not meant to be reproduced. Also, they were not meant to be recorded in order to be shown to an audience. This emphasized the temporal quality to the performances. That is why it is interesting that two prominent Contemporary Art Museums would recreate these in complete violation of his suggestion. What's your favorite? What do you think about the Happenings? Are they art?]

Exhibition Review of "Breath" at Thomas Masters Gallery

“Breath[e]” into Life: The Artist as Creator

Myeong Beom Kim’s “Breath”

Thomas Masters Gallery

Chicago, IL

Casey Champion

April 2009

“Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:7)

His mouth connected to a red shape before a camera, Myeong Beom Kim takes a deep breath and thrusts life into a balloon, watching as it grows larger and larger before his eyes, taking its own shape and floating effortlessly across the room. The artist, accompanied by the philosophical system of hylozoism, approaches his viewers in the exhibition “Breath” with the belief that as he creates art, he breathes life into each of his pieces. In a sense, what Kim is attempting to achieve is similar to a foundational biblical concept, where God the Creator breathes life into dust and creates man. This concept, when merged with appreciation of “God’s green earth,” as a masterpiece of art that creates, sustains, and inhabits life is a very big task for an artist to recreate. Yet Kim does this intricately in “Breath.” The photograph of Kim’s lips breathing into a balloon entices viewers for this appealing exhibition at Thomas Masters Gallery, located in Old Town, Chicago. All of the pieces in “Breath” are untitled and undated, however Kim is a contemporary artist lacking so much information as even a biography available for the public. Curated by Youn Soo Kim from February 27-March 29, Kim’s show truly captures the breath of viewers with its few small pieces, dominant levitating tree with extending roots and multilayered spiritual denotations.

Visiting this exhibition halfway through its duration reveals Kim’s initial mission for “Breath,” supporting the notion that all things that are alive will deteriorate and inevitably pass away. Curator Youn Soo Kim states that Kim “recreates principles of hylozoism – that all things possess life.” Hylozoism is a Catholic doctrine that does not only include all objects possessing life, but expands to all matter. The Original Catholic Encyclopedia defines this as childish lifestyle, an “inexperienced way of looking on nature.”¹ Interestingly, Kim’s “Breath” holds such a depth of spirituality that childishness is not inherently present. In accordance with this principle, several pieces that the show initially displayed were already removed, candles halfway melted, and below the ominous levitating tree were several deflated and withered red balloons.

Following the creaky wooden floorboards to the innermost gallery of Thomas Masters, the viewer is confronted with a commanding tree which appears to be floating to the ceiling, sprouting inflated red balloons as leaves. In addition, before the tree are four identical white pedestals. The first holds a scale that recalls the American symbol of justice, equally balanced with two partially melted white candles. Across from the scale, a second stand exhibits a thick, medium sized white candle, which is melted halfway and has a wiry, sprawling tree rather than a wick. Another pedestal simply displays three matches, composed neatly on the white surface. The last pedestal facing the tree has been topped with a plastered, white balloon. The objects appear as reliquaries before a holy figure, while the Thomas Masters Gallery is a symbol of an ancient temple, hosting the holy relic in its inmost chapel.

According to the curator, the untitled artwork that features a scale with two white candles is the demonstration of the balance of humanity, where all people are equal. Here the candles represent two people (one on each side), at the same time the scale represents life. Therefore the purpose for this piece is to show the equality that people as a whole share with each other. If the scale represents justice, this supports the notion of equality. In American society, justice is blind. It must remain blind so people can be held on the same regard. If this remains true, the United States Declaration of Independence reaches its mission when it stated:

“That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”²

Behind the pedestal with the scale is another pedestal presenting an untitled thick white candle, which has melted down. A wiry tree has replaced the wick. As the candle burns, the tree remains. This can trigger many associations within the viewer, depending on who is viewing this piece. To some viewers, the candle could signify life’s temporality while the tree denotes that nature is a constant. This reminds that nature sustains life for living beings, thus emphasizing nature must be elevated to a superior level among humans. As a human race, it is an oft-made mistake to place ourselves above nature, and this informing artwork is an awakening to that error.

The white clay balloon is important to notice as a precursor to the spiritual role of the massive floating tree, due to its own task of representing the spirituality of the exhibition. This untitled artwork encompasses Kim’s depiction of his role as the Creator, of using his breath to bring life to his creations. So he “breathes” life into the balloon, and gives it form with his own hands, complete with a navel. By pinching this navel in its painted white skin, Kim creates the effect of the balloon as a baby. He breathes life into this substance, which is similar to an embryo when it is in its most rudimentary stage. Kim’s breath allows this object to grow into a full state similar to the embryo in the mother’s belly, after God has given it life. He displays it to his audience with pride in its flawlessness, much like a parent would display their new child.

The pieces of art that stand before the floating tree have an expressive quality and have multiple layers of signification and signifiers. There are recurring themes of fire, trees and use of the color white. Even the exhibition room has a solid white color. These signifiers can be interpreted into a variety of themes, as previously mentioned. Relevant to the title and theme of the exhibit “Breath,” fire is a recurring subject matter within the artwork. Most obviously, a requirement to extinguish fire is breath, or exhalation. Also, according to University of Michigan, fire is also a symbol of purity³. The combination of this potential synonymous meaning with the purity denoted by Kim’s use of white is remarkable because it furthers the signification of this exhibition as a temple of holiness, spirituality, and purity. Also, trees are symbolized multiple times due to their continued sustenance of humans by production of oxygen, the element humans need to breathe. The use of the color white in such strong prevalence is engaging, as white is commonly a symbol of purity, spirituality, and neutrality. It is also signified in terms of “white or black,” it is a paradigmatic sign that is known by what it is only because of what it is not. This is all in direct relation to Barthes’ writing:

“As a total of linguistic signs, the meaning of the myth has its own value, it belongs to a history [in this case, the history of creatorship and purity, for example]…in the meaning, a signification is already built… The meaning is already complete, it postulates a kind of knowledge, a past, a memory, a comparative order of facts, ideas, decisions.”⁴

These themes are pertinent to the use of the levitating red tree (also untitled), which commands the most attention for all of the art in the gallery.

The hovering tree is nearly holy in its presence, covering a scale that is much larger than the viewers. While it is typically normal for a tree to outgrow a human, the act of the tree levitating and the outreaching roots (also freely floating) are not. The roots engage the viewer by forcefully extending in all directions at shoulder’s height, therefore authorizing their own power. And although we are under the impression that the tree needs the balloons for levitation, it is quick to correct the viewers that this simply is not true. The tree has already discarded several wilted balloons, devoid of life and lacking the life-giving breath from their Creator (Kim). The tree appears to hover in the air, lacking the necessity of helium filled balloons. On occasion, if the gallery is silent, the tree can be heard creaking rather ominously. This could either be a method used to depict the tree’s control over the exhibit, its holiness and power, or it could even be the tree requesting the aid of the viewers in using their own exhalations to keep it afloat. Viewing the tree from different perspectives allows it to be seen differently.

The artist uses the color scheme white, black, and red to surround the tree. Paradigms are often referred to as “white and black,” in terms of the manner in which people view the world. Either something must be white or it must be black. This tree must be alive or it must be dead. It must be secured or it must be held by helium. In certain situations, people consider viewing things in “gray,” meaning they blend two paradigms. By introducing an aesthetically compelling visual of red as holding a massive responsibility (for the helium-filled balloons that are “lifting” the tree to the ceiling), Kim introduces an entirely new point of view. Rather than viewing the world in black and white, his exhibition suggests, one should consider a previously unheard of perspective. Of course this tree is floating towards the ceiling, and whether or not it is “affixed” should not be the issue. Instead, the issue should be what feelings this provokes within the viewer. Walter Benjamin wrote about the “aura” of art, which reaches on many levels to art viewers.

“It is significant that the existence of the work of art with reference to aura is never entirely separated…”⁵

Rather than focusing on the improbability of a tree floating towards a ceiling, or concentrating on the possibility of its life, or its affixation to the top of the room, one should consider how the tree reaches and provokes their feelings, and what those feelings could mean for them. Nevertheless, Kim effectively created the impression of this tree as the dominant and perhaps holy presence in “Breath,” thus placing this as the exhibition to be seen prior to its dismantlement.

The remarkable inference about this exhibition is that although there is only one piece that is aesthetically appealing, all of the pieces share a meaning in various, yet connected ways which reaches the viewer on a deeply personal and spiritual level. And while the viewer may encounter this in a similar spiritual experience as a Rothko painting, time spent absorbing these artworks can touch and encourage the viewer, which only supports the artist and his meaning. Admittedly, time spent behind or next to the tree after deriving the blessings from the “reliquaries” preceding the “relic,” is awe-inspiring. Time spent absorbing the spiritual and contextual connotations of this exhibition enthralls the viewer into Kim’s overall goal to replicate the Creatorship of God by giving breath to his artworks and thus giving them life. After contemplating, the viewer most likely will come to the conclusions that there are overlying concepts of purity, exhalation and breath as the important foundations of life, paradigm shifts, the artist as the Creator, and all objects and matter possessing life. The notion that the viewers should connect all of the symbols, themes, and principles of this exhibition and come to a similar conclusion as the artist had intended is not far from the truth. For this, Kim succeeds in creating a thoughtful and engaging exhibit without portraying the Matissian concept that art should be like a comfortable “armchair for tired businessmen.”⁶

1 http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Hylozoism

2 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp

3 http://www.umich.edu/~umfandsf/symbolismproject/symbolism.html/F/fire.html

4 Barthes, Roland. Mythologies. Translated by Annette Lavers. New York: Noonday Press, 1972, pp. 115

5 Benjamin, W. (n.d.). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. In Art in Theory, 1900-1990 (p. 514). Blackwell.

6 http://www.leninimports.com/matisse_biography.html

via Thomas Masters Gallery


Thomas Masters Gallery