Search

Based on the distinction between Korper (physical body) and Leib (lived body) in its phenomenological sense, this thesis proposes a conceptual mapping between embodiment and disembodiment in Live Art. The thesis starts form the historical review on Growtowski and Artaud, and then engages with performance examples from Franko B, Mad-for-Real, Goat Island, La Pocha Nostra and Forced Entertainment, among others from the perspective of the audience and participant researcher. The thesis also includes two practice pieces from the perspective of the performer. The thesis asserts that as both the manifestation and application of phenomenological notions in live art, embodiment and disembodiment are inextricable to each other in the circulation between pre-expressivity and (para)-linguistic order. Based on this understanding, the thesis proposes a performative definition of Live Art and a method to create such art. The first half of the thesis explores embodiment as one sense of "Liveness" in Live Art. It explores the performative constitution of embodied self in its engendered actualization from indeterminate to certainty, and the performative strategy of such selves with other embodied subjects both in its aesthetic and social realm. Further discussion includes a general ecological aesthetic engagement, which has great affinity with the phenomenological notion lebenswelt (Lifeworld) constituted by embodied subjects and things. The second half explores the theoretical distinctions between materialized disembodiment and textualized disembodiment. The former pertains to the disembodiment of theperforrners and the latter pertains more to the audience. Thus. the thesis furthers the inquiry on the absence and presence of the body in live art, which also has a homology with the embodiment/disembodiment distinction. As extension of the materialized disembodiment and textualised disembodiment, the disappearing body is manifested in the practices under contemporary technological conditions such as cyborgs and hologram.

A comparison is made of two types of classical architecture, Classical Western Architecture (CWA) and Classical Chinese Architecture (CCA). Two major buildings, the Parthenon (built 447 - 432 BC) on the Acropolis at Athens and the Taihe Dian in the Forbidden City (built 1407 - 1421) at Beijing are used as examplars. The study reveals many similarities in the development and treatment of the two types of classical architecture, in spite of the very different cultural worlds from which they emerged. After examining the major characteristics of the two examples, the enquiry concentrates on the question of the origins and meanings of architectural treatment in both CWA and CCA, through a detailed study of the Parthenon and the Taihe Dian. It is argued that the treatment of space, form and decoration in both buildings has its origins in cosmic symbolism; that the notion of a Centre is expressed by their high and central location, axial symmetry, and centripetal theme; that the notion of a Sacred Space is expressed by an enclosed and ordered space; that qualities attributed to the dedicatee (Athena in the Parthenon and the Chinese emperor in the Taihe Dian) are expressed by the exterior form of the buildings; and that the inclinations, curvatures and proportions in the treatment of the exterior form have to do with the expression of the certain qualities represented by the dedicatee, as do their refinements. Finally that myths, legends, sacrifies and ceremonial processions illustrated by the static decoration, architectural sculptures, reliefs, paintings and ornaments are examined. Through comparisons between the two examples, an exploration is made of why and how such remarkable spaces, forms and decorations were created in both CWA and CCA.