Fidget As A Form Of Autobiography Analysis

Of course, the very fact that the piece derives from a body performance could be argued as a form of autobiography in itself. What is interesting about the performative element of “Fidget”, however, which in itself is a hugely exhausting durational piece, comparative to that of a condensed Tehching Hsieh “ordeal” of rigorous constraint or control over the body, is that it appears almost completely absent from the final work itself. The text remains the only documentation of the performance, and the work is discussed solely as a poem or piece of writing, despite the enormous role of performance in its creation. Interestingly, however, it is this “forgotten” element of performance which actually contradicts theories of autobiography in the work.
Continuing, Goldsmith goes on to deem “all autobiographies are … fiction”, noting the impossibility of documenting every detail to produce a genuine account of a person, a life, or a day, describing “Fidget” itself as a “work of total fiction.” Roland Barthes writes that the “literary quality” of “books extolling courage and moral fidelity” should not be affected by the opposing character of the author, an idea Goldsmith investigates, interested in the paradox, particularly in reference to Warhol’s glamorous writings – perhaps applying this to his own work. This pertains to the point that the difficulty of the performative task at hand undermines the honour of the work, and potentially indicates that the text is indeed in parts edited, fabricated, or acted. Whether autobiography in the conventional sense then is quite as firmly rooted in the work’s foundations as it first appears is very much debateable, unless of course we accept Goldsmith’s definitions on the facts of autobiography as being inherently fictitious – leaving the true role of autobiography in “Fidget”