Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

[Hank Trent]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

So I do think the general public can tell the difference.

I've not been able to figure that one out. Two anecdotes, that contradict each other.

1) My wife and I were at a cemetery living history thing in Dayton last fall. Most of the other speakers' clothes were thrift store makeovers, except for us in typical reenacting clothes. The timespan covered almost 200 years, and honestly, the men's clothes didn't look that bad, because they could get old formal suits and tailcoats cheap, so I didn't stand out. But several times my wife got the comment from visitors, "You look just like the people in old pictures," as if that was unusual, when of course all the female presenters should have caused that reaction. But they saw a difference.

2) My wife and I attended a dinner at a historical society conference to honor Civil War ancestors, where clothing was optional (I love saying that). She wore a reenacting dress, and I was going to wear a Union uniform to escort her, but mine smelled so bad of smoke from Winter 64 that I decided to go modern. So I wore khakis and a microsuede sportcoat and accompanied her. As it turned out, none of the men dressed period. Some wore casual coats while others wore nice shirts only, so I was fairly average. The people at our table insisted that I was dressed in period clothes, and actually argued with me about it. Yes, they were that stupid, and they were supposedly more interested in history than average.

So I dunno. I think people believe that hopelessly farby outfits are "okay" because that's what they're used to seeing, but if they see something more accurate beside something more farby, they do realize there's a difference.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[csuniforms]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

Hello Hank! Merry Christmas and a Happy Civil War fulfilling 2010!!

I have to brag here too. My wife and I have had our pictures taken 100 times in the past. People rush up-- and ask if they can take a picture with us. My wife is dressed to the nines in her period dress and bonnet, and me with a big top hat and black frock coat and pants, and a very fancy white and gold silk vest. -- Most people can see a difference, especially those with some Civil War interest.

Bragging over-- it is what it is I guess--- a constant struggle of authenticity vs. mediocrity, but I state with conviction, even the mediocre crowd, I am happy to see them and wish them fun and good times as they parade around in their, "Civil War clothes".

Merry Christmas to all my authentics
CSuniforms

Tom Arliskas

[ElizabethClark]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

When it comes to interpretive voice, one thing that's key to me is being able to accurately read the audience, and shift invisibly to accommodate their needs. (Add this to the helpful list of having SHORT talking points, relating things to their likely experience, etc.)

If you watch your surroundings, you'll see people give physical cues to being comfortable or not with first person. Backing up or crossing arms over their chest? Classic signs of discomfort! If I see then while I'm in a first person interpretive voice, it's very simple to shift to second or third person instead, without calling a speck of attention to it (as that gives the spectator some cue that they've "done it wrong" and can cause them to shut down very easily.)

Interpretive voice has to do with where each person in the exchange is placed in the story:

First Person: I am in the story, and everyone else is viewing it.
Second Person: I place the spectator in the story, using "you" statements instead of "I" statements.
Third Person: the spectator and I both become viewers of the story, rather than participants, as my vocal cues change to "they" statements, rather than "I" or "you" statements.

Second voice gets overlooked a lot, and personally, it's one of my favorites. It lets me avoid coming all the way out of my impression, but lets me draw the spectator in very easily, and draw comparisons and links for them. It's really effective with kids, and works with adults, too.

Effective interpretation is not a magical gift... it's simply a skill set. It comes more naturally to some, perhaps, but anyone with desire to do so can learn good interpretive skills that should be added to excellent research, context, and material impression details.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

There are several issues brought forth in Tom’s post and others that I struggle with. I usually avoid them altogether as they tend to lead to the tedious “Us –vs- Them” stuff that we try like crazy to avoid here on the A-C.

What do I mean? Typically, folks like me who can recall the good old days when there was “one hobby”, express a desire to go back to those times (most recently perhaps, 1998 and the big G-burg event) when, while there were still “Us” and “Them”, we all attended the same big events a couple of times each year. At some point in the discussion, folks start asking the question why it isn’t like that anymore. Both sides typically have the same response for the other side:
“Its your fault”

That discussion isn’t tolerated on the A-C. It goes nowhere. So, we usually get some flavor of “Why can’t we all get along?” In this version of the discussion, we replace “Its your fault” with “You guys should come (back) over to our side”.

Since the "divorce" metaphor was applied to the hobby earlier this year (different subject), I'll trot it out again...
It reminds me of children of divorced parents yearning for mom and dad to get back together. With time, people forget that the good old days weren’t all that great and wonder why mom and dad ever split up. Various kids appeal to one parent or the other. You get the picture.

For me, I’ll leave it here:
Let’s just accept that there is “Us” and “Them”. Its not good or bad, it just “is”. The old paradigm of the hobby from 2000 and earlier no longer really applies. If folks want bigger events, then fundamental assumptions/requirements on both sides of this dysfunctional family of issues will have to be thrown out.

…but that’s not the topic of this thread. OK?

I appreciate all the thought going into this thread. ALL of the posts have had some good food for thought. I’d like to keep this thread open and on-track. Let’s focus on the version of the Civil War “Play dress-up” hobby espoused by the owner and admin’s of the A-C, rather than getting us all back together or any blame-games.

Merry Christmas folks!

[Hank Trent]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

My wife is dressed to the nines in her period dress and bonnet, and me with a big top hat and black frock coat and pants, and a very fancy white and gold silk vest. -- Most people can see a difference, especially those with some Civil War interest.

Off topic, but maybe not really...

When you wear a top hat, how do you get around the "There's Abraham Lincoln!" thing? Does that happen to you?

I'm barely 5'7", but when I'm wearing a black frock coat and top hat, I always get it whenever there's a--how shall I say it?--less historically literate crowd. Not sure what trips the trigger--top hat and beard? Top hat and dark hair? Top hat and thin? How many other civilian reenactors get it?

It starts the interpretation off on a really bad foot, because...

--First, I have to tell them they're wrong, and however nicely one does it, it's still not the best way to start a conversation.

--Second, they don't realize it but it's an insult because it implies I'm the worst farb imaginable if I believe I look like Abraham Lincoln, so it requires extra effort to suck it up and be nice. That gets really tiresome.

--Third, as it turns out, they're usually the types who don't really care much about history and would be as happy just seeing a farb in a silly costume. So I'd normally just give them the minimum interpretation and let them go, but they require more time and effort than necessary because I need to take extra time to explain that I'm not portraying Abraham Lincoln, and often they're skeptical or argumentative. But if I don't correct them, otherwise they shout out to others, "Hey, Lincoln's over there," or "Let me take my picture with you, Mr. Lincoln," and it's just a mess.

It could be a really good teaching moment, to explain that Lincoln wore the same clothes as any businessman, like every president does in his own era, and there was nothing unique to Lincoln about a top hat and black coat. But that's way, w-a-a-a-y over their heads. None have ever listened when I've started down that road.

Because of the problems, I've simply quit wearing a top hat for public interpretation unless I know it'll be a crowd that's really interested in history. I either do post-war where I can wear a derby, or summer where I can wear a straw top hat, or middle-lower class where I can wear my old slouch hat.

But it seems a shame not to be able to wear a top hat in public. What do other reenactors do?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

I guess I don't have that problem very often because Abe Lincoln was white, tall, thin, beard, and in his 50s and I'm short, thin, black, without facial hair, and in my 20s. :-P

However, occasionally someone will remark on it though I can't say usually when in a first person context. So usually I address it in a third person manner and I have never had anyone skeptical, etc.

[csuniforms]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

Hello Hank, Well I dont look anything like Abraham Lincoln, but I wear a really nice top hat. I leave the Abe Lincolns to the Abe Lincolns-- they are the ones that draw the crowd. Everybody knows Abe Lincoln. I look like a rich banker.

As to the "US vs. Them" in the bobby. That is a road that leads eventually to nowhere. We can feel it and see it, but it just meanders around takes a life of its own and when we come to the fork in the road, all go their own way. That is just the way it is and all of us understand it. Myself included. I dont want to open that diatribe either, but I recognize it is there.

What worked very well here in Wisconsin, and it is still being done, is hosting a series of classes or seminars on the Civil War. Lance Herdegen of Iron Brigade fame right now is hosting two classes on the Civil War at our new Civil War Museum in Kenosha. This could be done locally in your town in conjunction with any venue you have, Round Tables, Colleges, or SUV, CV's etc. Lance was able to add a lot of names to the Civil War Community of hobbyists and some really serious research people through his classes. Living History could be a big part of this classroom venue.

On the reenacting front-- its an open field. Communication as to what is going on is the key. IF ever someone had a title of importance-- its the person who keeps track and gets the word out on what is transpiring around the Country. -Public Relations Coordinator-- The collapse of Civil War Historian shot a big hole in living history reporting.

CSuniforms
Tom Arliskas

[Hank Trent]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

Hello Hank, Well I dont look anything like Abraham Lincoln, but I wear a really nice top hat. I leave the Abe Lincolns to the Abe Lincolns-- they are the ones that draw the crowd. Everybody knows Abe Lincoln. I look like a rich banker.

Well, I look like a rich banker too, and I also don't look anything like Abe Lincoln, physically. You can see me in my avatar, and add the fact that I'm eight or nine inches shorter than him.

It's not like I'm trying to dress like Abe Lincoln. I think you missed the point of my post.

Do other civilian reenactors not have this problem when they portray upper class and/or businessmen?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Old Cremona]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

Well, I look like a rich banker too, and I also don't look anything like Abe Lincoln, physically. You can see me in my avatar, and add the fact that I'm eight or nine inches shorter than him.

It's not like I'm trying to dress like Abe Lincoln. I think you missed the point of my post.

Do other civilian reenactors not have this problem when they portray upper class and/or businessmen?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Not that I can recall. I am tall, thin, and white but people don't call me Abe Lincoln (while wearing a top hat). Perhaps it's the dissolute air that a banjo player carries that keeps me from being confused with Father Abraham

[SCTiger]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

It's mostly the organizations and sponsors of events that set the stage for public perception. If the unit, organization or event wants an accurate presentation that will focus on history and present the knowledge acquired, they can do it. As to the buffoons; anyone can make up a cheap kit, or turn a battle reenactment into a Civil War lalapalooza, we shouldn't help those types.

You can only do the best job you can and support the units, people and sites that would love that high degree of accuracy. The public will see the difference as long as we don't dilute ourselves, there will be a marked contrast. A major component is our personal conduct in front of the spectators as Hank described, our personal demeanor while wearing the historic clothing is the most important part of our "impression."

We just don't represent reenactors or living historians, We actually represent the people of the era.

[Pat.Lewis]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

Having been called out from the beginning here (thanks Em :tounge_sm), I was trying to think of a proper response for this thread, but there have been too many fine opinions expressed here that I admit I didn’t think I had anything else to add. Well, there’s that and the fact that flamethreads tend to follow my opinions on public history. But here’s a shot...

As many of you know, I ardently believe – in conjunction with the NPS’s Rally on the High Ground and Holding the High Ground initiatives – that the only way to preserve the Civil War in the public mind is to move “beyond the battlefield” to the broader social and political context of the war, in order to interest more than just white males in the war. This is fundamental; if we do not expand the audience for Civil War sites, books, etc. then, quite frankly, interest in the war will for all intents and purposes die with the Boomers.

Living history could – and should – be a significant part of this expansion of the meaning of the war. Quite a few of the events/programs that I have participated in – and many others that I have not, but you all have – have shown the bigger world beyond the battlefield, and given countless folks a new appreciation for the world of the 1860s. Wives whose husbands had dragged them, disinterested, to battlefield after battlefield suddenly blossom into a new appreciation of their own. Fantastic!

But doing this is uncomfortable. The interpreter must force the visitors beyond the familiar, beyond the known, beyond the comfortable. It must force them to confront conflict, violence, slavery, economic inequality, gender inequality, and all sorts of nasty issues. For the Christmas Eve sermon at my local church, our priest talked about the dangers of familiarity. The Christmas story, he posited, has become too familiar, too comforting. Secure in the knowledge of the ending, we too often ignore the brutal realities, unsanitary conditions, and worldly dangers that made the achievement of this birth – much less the next 33 years – a touch-and-go thing, a real struggle. Familiarity, he argued, breeds complacence and comfort in the expected. Furthermore, when we’re being comforted, the brain shuts off the dialogical processes of interpretation – the conversation between the reader and the text or listener and speaker that produces thought and meaning. By breaking the constraints of familiarity, the struggle and achievement of the Christmas story is all that more miraculous and meaningful.

But discomforting our warm-and-fuzzies is the first step in that intellectual process.

The battlefield has, for generations, been a refuge from these issues, where Americans have immersed themselves in the familiar, the comforting, insulated from the divisiveness off the field of glory. This is why I was so excited to see the Co. Aytch event come off as it did: Emmanuel’s presence alongside the (excellent) military impressions brought slavery to the battlefield, invaded that comfort space – made it more complex than anyone in the audience imagined it could – and forced them to think about those bigger issues. It broke those constraints of familiarity on the battlefield, and in doing so – even if they didn’t agree with our interpretation – forced that interpretative dialogue to occur in their minds. Hopefully, then, that intellectual exercise will spark a desire for more, that challenge to think will open up their curiosity to learn more.

That drive to understand, to learn more, is what keeps us in the hobby, I’ll venture. It’s why we seek to know more about the material and experiential reality of the Civil War soldier. I think that by challenging the public with adventurous, bold, and even discomforting programming we might spark some of our same motivation in them.

Thoughts?

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

Pat (you are welcome :)), I agree with what you have eloquently said and paraphrased the leader of your church (some may have doubted the place of religion on this forum, but don't we portray some people sometimes who were religious? :p)

Anyway, a living history example of pushing past the comfortable and known:

At work (Petersburg National Battlefield) we have land best associated amongst Civil War buffs and historians as being the location of General Grant's headquarters and the Union supply depot at City Point (now Hopewell), Virginia. For years the NPS interpretation was driven from the perspectives of Grant, Lincoln, Union supply, etc. However, we (collective American people and visitors "we") would not have that site if it were not for the descendants of the Eppes family, who own the property. Old timers here and close friends of mine now may groan; however, the Grant's HQ at City Point unit of Petersburg Nat'l Battlefield offers excellent stories a part of the collective American experience. By 1860, one of Francis's descendants, Richard Eppes owned about 2300 acres of property in three counties, divided into four farms, included a population of 127 enslaved men, women, and children (newborns to people in their late 70s) and of course included the master's family, overseers and their families, and a hired white nurse. PNB has the family's 1763 (additions added in the 1840s, 1850s, and early 20th century) residence, associated early-mid 19th century outbuildings, and Grant's cabin. The Eppes owned the property from 1635-1979, so the Union occupation is just a blip on the landscape for the totality of that family's occupancy of the property. However, there was a great upheaval in the way in which whites and blacks lived on the property after the war.

Ok, so on to the living history... In 2007 and 2009, I worked in giving out information regarding the management of the plantation, the slaves, the owner, his family, and associated primary source material to people who would portray Richard Eppes, his second wife, Elizabeth Welsh Horner of Philadelphia; his cousin and fellow slave holder, Martha Cocke; two domestic servants and two field hands for the 2007 program and one field hand for the 2009 program. The program is called "Christmas on the Plantation" and joins to some degree the slew of historic sites in the South which have some sort of Christmas themed event. Both times the program was given, visitors were guided through a first person experience of the residence and interacted with the Eppes family and the enslaved community. People were emotionally moved by the stories we told (as though we were those people), of course less so why the owners than the enslaved. Why? Because to quote Pat the visitors had to "confront conflict, violence, slavery, economic inequality, gender inequality, and all sorts of nasty issues." The stories of happy, complacent slaves have been present with various "publics" since the era of slavery and the experience of slaves have often been encapsulated into "The slaves." What is less observed particularly in living history situations is the face, name, biography, and details of "the slaves." Of course I recognize the juxtaposition of a Christmas program with stories of " conflict, violence, slavery, economic inequality, gender inequality, and all sorts of nasty issues." However, as I maintain the stories are the stories. In January 1858, there is little reason to doubt Richard Eppes whipped his cook, Susan Slaughter. People winced at this but were even more stunned by my character's chiming in that the cook's daughter was beaten so badly by an overseer's wife that her entire shirt was covered in blood in Dec. 1857. However, these stories are contrasted by Eppes's anger over the beating in Dec. 1857 and subsequent replacement of that overseer and Mrs. Eppes's hosting of a party for the dining room servant's (my character) wedding a few days after Christmas 1858 (and Christmastime 1858 guided the time line of the living history).

So I've gone on (much longer than I intended) but my end goal was not to have visitors crying (which did happen) or to paint slave holders as super villans; but it was to force people to understand that human hands planted, tended, and harvested crops and animals; human minds interacted with one another to enact and perpetuate slavery and the master/mistress/slave relationships. Ultimately, these people have stories that ought to be told because of a long time they were suppressed and hidden away. The end goal of my program was to show that even in the repressive slave system: owners and enslaved people were humans and their interactions and opinions shifted and changed based on events within and outside of the individual's control.

[CorySF]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

,Having spent 17 tears in Special Forces and having done what's called "walk-ons" and capex's (capability exercises) for civilians (which is a full layout demonstration and presentation of what we carried and how we did certain missions), I have found that the same principle works for the living history aspect of this "hobby". With the mission of engaging as many people as possible with the goal of educating as many people as possible, I find that most people know something about the battles, a little about the politics, but what they really want to know is how "we" lived and what we carried and what did we do when we were'nt fighting. So i tailor my presentation around that to present as inviting a display as possible, and they come. For the living histories I'll bring as many variations of equipment as possible (a little extra work, but well worth the effort). I might bring both a knapsack and a bedroll to show the configuration of both. I layout all the belongings of the average soldier including a few things that generally are not displayed by the average reenactor such as newspapers, my Confederate Bible Society New Testament, Christian tracts, period candy (for the kids), different types of shoes, etc. I make real cartridges and cast my own ball. I also make all my period food such as salt beef and hardtack and the various things that were consumed and display it. I allow everything to be handled and examined, it goes a long way. I also find that if you remain in uniform with all your accoutrements on and musket in hand, it invites people to come over because it shows that you are interested in sharing with them. It surprises me how many people come to talk with me and want their picture taken because of these simple basic things. They actually avoid some of the other members of my unit because the first thing that the guys do after a demonstration is take off their gear and congregate around the fire and have a gab fest. There is no need to come up with schemes to attract people to your camp, just keep it simple and inviting, and most importantly know your stuff, keep it authentic and smile.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

In a different thread on a different website...
It was suggested that large-scale interest in the ACW may end with the Boomer generation. I'd bet that most on this website didn't stumble upon their interest in the Civil War at age 25 or 30. I'm guessing that a lot of us found our interest between ages 5 and 10 (maybe 12). Whether reenacting, preservation, or whatever, the more people that become interested in this time period, the better.

With this in-mind:
What can/should be (is being?) done to capture the interest of kids?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Innovative Interpretation for the PUBLIC

Hallo!

"With this in-mind: What can/should be (is being?) done to capture the interest of kids?"

A very relative, but difficult question IMHO as the very nature of the Hobby works against us.

I first became interested in the "Civil War" at the age of 12 when my hometown city decided to level its cemetery and contacted us as to whether we wanted my the grave stone of my CW veteran g-g-grandfather.

The great obstacle for us or any reenacted period or era is not only the rythmic cycles of growth and decline, but the aging of the Boomers who invented reenacting and who make up a disproportionate percentage of its ranks.

What works against us is the "competition" from "Bells and Whistles" and "Short Attention Spans" in the form of cell phones, texting and tweating, and video games placed on the scale with the expense and discipline of reenacting.
In other words, the "Biggie" in that the more "authentic" segment of our community is the MOST univiting and barrier-ridden in that the child and the youth is "discriminated" against by the minimum age ceiling of 18ish and the real costs of being uniformed at a time when growing and growth sees expensive uniforms being outgrown in relatively short time.

But even in the more so-called Farb and Mainstream segments where kids as young as say 12 or 10 are or may be allowed to field as "soldiers," and apart from the kids in already "insider" reenacting families- there is great "competition" from the contemporary Youth Culture.
So, it is hard and harder to capture the interest and involvement of an "under 18ish" kid of say 12, 14, or 16 when all they have to do is "wear funny clothes" and hang aorund the "family camp" for a weekend resenting every boring moment away from friends, phones, and video games. AND, be told they have to wait six, four, or two years until they are "old enough" to be a soldier and take the field. (Girl children being an even more complicated issue...)

And last but not least, what DOES reenacting have to offer, let alone compete with the Modern World for a kid (even) at a non so-called Farb or Mainstream event or at best a "civilian" EBUFU-type/authentic type event for a non-soldier 14 year old?

Or as in the case of my daughter, having grown up in museums and a museum passing as a house, she lost all interest in "distaff reenacting" at about the age of 11- and has no interest at all now in spite or despite our best efforts to interest and engage her. Or for that matter my wife who, when I crossed the line in the H/A World, "quit" altogether.

Being cynical and jaded, and burned out... my best and only consolation is that I have had this exact discussion many times since 1976 and (so far) the extinction of reenacting or living history in any period has not happened yet even though at the time and at the moment the fears certainly seemed ominous, threatening, and imminent. (Such as for the CW at the end of the 125th Anniversay Events).

OR as I half joke, half fear, what will happen in 2014 when EVERYONE switches over to the 100th of WWI...

:)

Curt
Who on some daze is considering forming a national association or organization of the Grand Army of the Republic for all of the aging CW lads who better fit the appearance, abilities, and demographics of the GAR Mess