ONE on one with a renowned performance artist Nikhil chopra
Art&Deal: When I consider your performative work I think of your desire to engage very directly
with the viewer and draw them out of their comfort
zone and into your theatrical world. Are you seeking
to envelope people with your performances?
Nikhil Chopra: Yes, to surround them, to
transport them, to discount them even but always
to hold them capture, many things. Where at a
theatre an audience would be seated; I intend in
my work to suspend them, allowing them to sit, to
stand and touch, to come as close to the performer
and the objects in order that this distance between
performer and audience can be broken down, in
order that the audience can negotiate with the space
to be in the performance. All performances are very
different, tellingly for my Bombay and New York
performances, the Bombay audience had to enter theabout what history it is. In New York, I chose to work
from Ellis Island from where there was a whole history of
identity politics and immigration attached to the location.
The audience is there and take in the performance in the
context of where we are. This is not just an examination of
micro histories but of macro histories, personal histories.
I willingly take reference from histories in order to evoke
new histories and encourage many more possibilities.
A&D: Who are your performative influences? Cindy
Sherman, Sophie Calle, Joseph Beuys and Yves Klein;
were they significant? And who were your influences in
India? Whose performative work do you consider as the
underpinning for your own unique practice?
NC: Cindy Sherman, Joseph Beuys, others that have
initiated this leap of faith were Serbian, American Marina
Abramović and Eleanor Antin. I can recall a studio visit
of Eleanor’s New York studio space, someone who heavily
influenced my work; she asked why I was not pushing
particular ideas much further. That was influential, early
video work, Bruce Nauman, Paul McCarthy, Dan Graham,
Victor Hannibal Acconci, Chris Burden, out of the 60’s, 70’s,
80’s, I had a real interest in performance art history, which
had a huge role in making me want to choose performance.
Mario Mario, Japan, neo-dada, Europe, works by Hermann
Nitsch, the actionist movement, epic in scale were also
incredibly relevant for me.
I wasn’t exposed enough to art history, I considered I
was lagging behind, and I was very conscious of my own
immaturity in terms of criticality, I didn’t have a gutsy spirit
initially and it’s about confidence, as a painter, sculptor,
the artist carries the burden of art history, a blank canvas
can be utterly daunting. Performing alone, opening a blank
document is a leap of faith; it is about putting yourself
out there. Performance is another medium in which I am
allowing myself to be as successful as I am allowing for
the possibility for failure. Failure really is built into the
performance and there is of course a sense of exhibitionism
about what I do.
