Oakland’s Contemporary Slant Stirs Traditionalist Incite
Petra Bibeau
Caleb Rogers and Adam Hatch, Cage 1: (Cagee Jon Schroeder), mixed media, 2005, photo: Connie Yu
If it has been mentioned that "it has been done before" in regards to the performance art project Human Zoo at LoBot Gallery, it more than likely stems from an expectation nearing historical performance art methods of an artist self exiled to a cage, performing acts or non-actions with departure points from start to finish. However, the reference to the performance art of artists locked in cages for days or months, on display with sexual advent, roommates with fecal matter, is not well suited when viewing Human Zoo.
From the onslaught, the connotation of free willed locked up individuals for the purpose of an art show coupled with live bands and alcohol disturb a human sympathy much deeper than surface, recalling conflicted messages of contemporary western politics and the philosophy of personal and political freedoms. Offhand notions of bad timing, extraneous ventures earmarked for the purpose of art, and a slippery slope of bad taste all found confident strong holds in regards to Human Zoo. The problem with the perceived concept was such: four willing individuals locked up for seven days in the gallery minus a clear or concise purpose. It seemed offensively extravagant at the expense of countless real life examples across the globe. However, the actuality of Human Zoo was not correctly pitched or explained; a mislead that could be read as a positive since the reality of Human Zoo took an unexpected direction from the perceived venture that proved an irresistible challenge to viewers sensibilities.
The cages on display functioning more as holding tanks than cages, were cleverly constructed from wooden palettes, chicken wire and plexiglass. Each cage was painted and uniquely designed, doubling as intriguing makeshift assemblage constructs. The caged originally consisted of four voluntary individuals, two of which make up the founders/co-curators of LoBot Gallery, Caleb Rogers and Adam Hatch, which caused yet again another curious conflict within the project: objectivity. If Rogers and Hatch wanted to prove they are not swayed by the status quo, the act of locking themselves in the two extra cages made that point quite obvious. Especially when the distance of curator and art is expected, Rogers delved into the position of project, minimizing objectivity for the purpose of the performance. Rogers remained among the other two cages for the seven day duration. Hatch escaped on the third day.
The project took shape by the documents that decorated the outside of the cages. Release forms and daily questionnaires provided a detailed meaning for volunteership, (animal rights, human rights, political/philosophical commentaries), and personal information for each individual, including dietary restrictions and contemplations on freedoms, and general thoughts through out the course of each day. These identifiers showed great utility, baring thoughts and personality to strangers who would read the responses and then view the specimen at work: on laptops, drinking, sitting with a cat, smoking, or laying down. Human Zoo examined contact and crisis: watching individuals interact with the caged behind chicken wire and/or talking through slits in the palettes added a sense of connection with virtual strangers. The difference of accessibility between caged and "free" visitors at times seemed uselessly disturbing thus provoking a frustrating crisis of condition and purpose. The uselessness, since escape was viable for the caged, prompted the emptiness in post-production: after the opening reception where the caged were virtual superstars, (Rogers alone attracting a waiting line minutes long), the theme of the mundane became apparent. Without an audience, who would care (beyond the caged individuals) of their daily mental struggles? The answer would rely heavily on humanity.
As has been currently stated by critics of Human Zoo, there were no "physically abusive conditions": restroom breaks, clothing, and two meals per day were all permitted. The criticism begs the question of why Human Zoo is being held exclusively to a standard measure of performance art methodologies thus far. A traditionalist way of viewing such would obviously create a show of great disparity between Human Zoo and previous performance art pieces of the loosely similar fashion, yet the traditionalist view in itself is a stagnant and narrow scope of measure that misses the original intent of Human Zoo. The project falls flat when judged against the easiest precursors available because the project in fact, (flaws and all), took a route that flirted with past endeavors while bravely redesigning and recasting the molds and constraints to a measure befitting for the environment; In essence creating an altogether different product.
The minimal approach to Human Zoo was a perfect fit for all the details: just enough bare bones to make the cages notice a mental state of uncomfortable boredom and anxiety. Regardless, no one was fooled into thinking that the performance was some lofty or critical inquiry of unreachable scope. The caged individuals mocked themselves by placing postings on Craigslist asking for chocolate and utilized some of their time by working on sleek iBooks and composing music when permitted. Yet over and beyond having minimal access to a few select conveniences, the underlying reality remained (as Hatch depicted by his instinctual flight): they were restrained in cages for seven days. A sense of will power, as Rogers later explained, had to exist in order for the remaining three to remain caged.
Only a scanning eye of indifference that lightly dismisses the creation of Rogers and Hatch could deny the honest challenge of human perseverance and close to perfect match of environment and conditions suited for the project. Rogers and Hatch did not overdo themselves; with enough know-how to work on the edge of their respective boundaries without "playing hero", they offered a remarkable sense of reality for viewers willing to accept that the role of appropriation differs from exact replication. Unfortunately, the constant longing for the standard measure in performance art has shadowed Human Zoo’s larger possibility in a revival of the traditional. The challenge of the traditionalist bent and harsh criticism of Human Zoo to stay the main course is an upsetting recall of the occasional conservatism of the art scene of the Bay Area.
Human Zoo
02/12/05 -02/26/05
LoBot Gallery
1800 Campbell Street
West Oakland, CA 94607
