Hey Kriston,

I've been waiting for this review from you. I have many questions, but I'll start with this one. Can you elaborate on how Coble's piece does this:

"Coble taps that debate with her symbolism, putting the question to the viewer: Does Christianity reinforce discrimination against GLBT individuals?"

What exactly is the symbolism you speak of? Does the tattoo recall Christianity? Or is it the whole blood thing a reference to Jesus on the cross?

Admittedly I have very little understanding of Christianity but I was surprised to see you link Coble's piece to that. The government stuff I get...

Thanks for writing about the show!

Like you say—the blood thing, the endurance thing, the "suffering for someone's sins" thing, although Mary Coble obviously means it in a different way. I felt like the performance was in a loose sense a redemptive act similar to the Crucifixion: Coble was being tattooed, which is pretty painful and takes a long time (like the Crucifixion), and the whole point was to transform her body in order to change the metaphysical status of 100 victims—from murder victims to hate crime victims, a distinction the law doesn't provide.

I wouldn't say the work was religious, though—just that it had a lot of correspondence with Christian imagery.

OK, fair enough. How do you reconcile the performance, of which you seem to be a fan, with the comments at the Artery: http://arteryartery.blogspot.com/2005/09/mary-coble-at-connor-contemporary-arts.html

Specifically, that an artist did a very similar thing about AIDS over a decade ago. Do you think an artist will do something similar every ten years based on the current events of the time? Speed things up and you could have an artist do the same thing for victims of Katrina.

Clearly I'm intrigued by the idea of the piece but I just can't decide what I think about it. I'm looking to you for guidance.

Thanks again!

It took me a minute to dig through the archives, but Ron Athey came up in comments over here, too. They're similar, but I think the similarity is mostly superficial: based on what I read about it, Athey's performance was supposed to come off as mechanical, like manufacturing. (That seems to be what Mark has to say about it in comments at the Artery, too). I didn't get that from Coble. Also, the two artists place different emphasis on the prints/artifacts of the performance. Both using blood but to different ends.

And I suppose it's fair to say that a certain amount of redundancy is to be expected from art on/with the human body. At a basic level body artists are all working with the same material.

An essay on bloodletting art that features some stills of Athey's work. Naturally enough, Chris Burden's name comes up in the essay—I was going to note that UCLA kerfuffle as an example of copycat work.

It may be more a testimony to my own predilections, but my immediate thoughts in relation to this performance was of flagellation and mortification of the flesh. Medieval Christian religious practice, as I understand it, often centered around empathic meditation on the Passion of Christ. This quest for empathy with Christ's agony meets its ultimate form in its actual reenactment, in the self-mortification of monks and others.

The theology of this practice seems to focus on discipline, punishment and atonement, and the ultimate rejection of worldly, sinful flesh. While Coble's piece is hardly in keeping with such practice in this traditional theological dimesion (beyond, possibly, the notion of mortification as atonement for the sins of others), it does seem to reflect it in the symbolic and ritual dimensions—that is, offering forth the body as a site of empathic suffering and the dramatic retracing of the pain of others, with scars and wounds as sign and evidence, with the act itself serving as outward testimonial of commitment.

Just a cursory glance at Athey's work suggests a much more explicit connection to the Christian iconography of suffering, at the same time mirroring and reversing it. In fact, a PDF at ronathey.com, connecting the artist's practice to his upbringing in the Pentecostal church and his later heroin addiction, says so in so many words:

Athey practices sadomasochistic ritual as a personal religion, using it as a means of transcendence. Although he has become sober and rejected the church, his current work is still full of religious iconography, and he performs self-flagellation and blood-letting on stage as theatrical autobiography.

Ultimately, though, the symbolic and ritual thrust of the two do strike me as rather similar.

I think highlighting (as Kriston does above) that "a certain amount of redundancy is to be expected from art on/with the human body" is very much to the point, offers a way at JT's question of whether it matters if the performance actually occurs, or if it's really just the thought that counts.

As ultimately symbolic an act as Coble's might be, I think that the concept alone will not suffice. Even from my vantage here in Chicago, where I only have access to textual descriptions of the piece (where I, in fact, only perceive the concept alone—the webcast froze on me, and was too small to be compelling in itself anyways), the act only achieves any resonance if it's given to me as something that has really taken place—as a matter of fact. It's less about the novelty of the idea (as Kriston avers, the repetoire available for body art may be necessarily limited) than about the actual performance of the act and the actual physical pain that may result, however remote it may be from my immediate line of sight.

Agreed on all counts, Dan. Thanks for weighing in.

I am researching a wide variety of public performance art,conceptual ART, personal rituals as well as commercial tattoo experiences related to "Writing on the BODY" I will publish images and info in Skin and Ink magazine. I hope to hear from Mary. The gallery director has NO COMMENT on the performance event.

my eyes teared when i read about this. a beautiful tribute, long overdue in so many forms. do you know how i can contact mary coble? thanks.