Living History as Performance Art

[Hank Trent]

Just came back from an event that made me realize yet again how differently people approach living history.

Here's an article I ran across a couple years ago that discussed living history the way I see it. It totally surprised me to find it, because it's different from the usual Tilden-type "living history interpretation" essays and instead it raises a lot of issues and covers many nuances that I've considered over the years.

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=bgsu1136660752&disposition=inline

It's a PDF file. It's long, but no need to read it all. Check out, for example, a few pages starting on page 10

Part of the problem with [living history museums' anti-theatrical] bias is that they are basing their understanding of performance and acting on a binary believing that one is either performing or one is not. It is very black and white thinking. Both acting and performing actually should be considered in much broader terms based on a continuum of complexity.

What this means is that at one end of the spectrum, there are some activities that, due to their context, would be difficult to classify as a performance or as any form of acting. This could be referred to as a non-performance or nonacting.

One such example would be a person running a register at a grocery store. What that person is doing would be perceived as a non-performance or an ordinary day-to-day action. Now if that person were on stage before an audience and repeating this action from night to night, the complexity of the action would have reached the other side of the spectrum and would be perceived of as a performance and the person, an actor. The context of the typical grocery store and the grocery store on a stage changes the action into a performance.

And also the section called "We are not actors!" starting around page 161.

I firmly believe that reenacting is acting, just like the clothes we wear are costumes. The difference is that the costumes and the acting and the sets must be so good, so realistic, that in theory, they're indistinguishable from "not acting" and "not costumes."

In other words, like the cash register example in the quote above, there should be no way to tell, on the closest inspection or interaction, that the person running the cash register was "performing," except for the fact that he was on a stage rather than in a local store (or was within the confines of an area designated as 186x rather than actually in 186x.).

That's in theory, of course. In practice, it's far from perfect. But that's the goal, and if that goal is kept in mind, it's easy to decide whether something contributes to that goal or detracts from it. If it contributes, do it if possible. If it detracts, eliminate it if possible.

Camera in the pocket? Detracts. Period documents in the pocket? Adds. Asking what events someone is attending next? Detracts. Talking about period trivia while doing some task? Adds. And so forth. Some things detract but are arguably better to do anyway--modern medical issues, practical/legal limitations like a site demanding modern toilet facilites, etc.

I also believe that in theory, the "performance" is for every person you encounter at an event and for every moment of the event, and the performance takes precedent over individuals' wishes. Otherwise, anyone--an audience member, a fellow performer--can demand at any moment that the performance be stopped and other performers must comply.

But no other performance art works like that. If you're tired of acting in a play or watching it, you walk out if you're an audience member or you try your best to carry on or remove yourself unobtrusively if you're part of it. You don't demand that the other actors stop to accomodate you and you don't wander on stage and interrupt the action. Yet that's how many reenactors respond; not only do they not want to contribute to the performance, they expect it to stop whenever they demand it, regardless whether others would like it to continue.

A performer always has to deal with hecklers, rude people, clueless people, honest critics--all manner of detractors. The difference is that in reenacting, there's no consensus about what's even going on. The idea of reenacting as performance art is unfortunately a rare one.

For example, a heckler knows he's a heckler when he shouts insults at a comedian; a theater-goer knows some people will think she's rude when she talks loudly about the movie and interrupts others who are trying to get caught up in watching it. But what's expected at a reenactment? Is it a performance some of the time and a cast party the rest of the time? Is there a "stage" and a "backstage" or is it all the "stage"? Who's the audience and who's enjoying the show? Not even the reenactors agree.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Acting conveys a specific, scripted message and parameters, which in most cases, the actor isn't allowed much room for deviation.

In the LH envrion......

The cash register example has no scripted message outside of the conveyance of the P/E/C aspects of cash register usage and the operation it supports. There is plenty of leeway and thus variation in what and how historical roles are conveyed based on the participants direct, supported knowledge of the role......and as such for me personally is more aptly termed "interpretation", rather than acting.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Acting conveys a specific, scripted message and parameters, which in most cases, the actor isn't allowed much room for deviation.

That's one narrow definition of acting: following the script of a play.

But what about improv, which has nothing to do with following a script? Isn't that also acting?

What about a street mime (*cringe*--I know, but still). That's not acting?

You've given one quick-and-easy definition of acting, and I've given a couple more quick-and-easy examples that don't fit that definition, but they're far from the only ones. Check out all the nuances in the essay. There's way, way more depth and subtlety--and trust me, this is not my background. I've never taken an acting class, never acted in a play beyond high school, never done any other kind of "acting" or "performance art" than reenacting. But still, I can appreciate the sense of art, of pushing the envelope, of looking at old things in new ways, that performers do in their field, the same way reenactors push the boundaries in historical research, for example.

We can come up with names for those different variations, but I can't see rejecting the overall term of acting which is normally applied to all of them as the broader generic term, because there's something to be learned from that field.

There is plenty of leeway and thus variation in what and how historical roles are conveyed based on the participants direct, supported knowledge of the role......and as such for me personally is more aptly termed "interpretation", rather than acting.

Yep. But I'd argue that "interpretation" itself has a blurred and, to some extent, negative context when it comes to reenacting history accurately.

We can "interpret" history, meaning to give our interpretation of what we perceive the past to have been like. I can see that as a good label, because it does make clear that we're always biased and limited in our knowledge and that that inevitably shows through in the performance.

But "interpreting history" is already in use as a public teaching term, and it implies a specific and limited motive. The whole purpose is to interpret (teach, explain, make clear) history to someone else. If a historical interpreter has modern stuff in his pockets, or modern underwear, or a can of Pepsi hidden around the corner, who cares? If he knows the public will never see those things, it doesn't interfere with interpretation.

It also implies that there's a sharp line between the interpreter and the audience, because museum interpreters, for example, never interpret to each other, only to the public; therefore the implication is that there's no point in "interpreting" at all if the public isn't around.

It also means that making the topic interesting, clear, reasonably inoffensive, and--let's be honest--profitable, takes priority over making it accurate. Bored, angry, confused consumers of interpretation won't come back. Therefore, if a person from the real 19th century stepped out a time machine and into the role, he might fail spectacularly, because he might be unsociable, surly, talk without 21st century interests in mind, get angry or be offensive, etc. Yet he'd be perfectly accurate. And I don't like a word that implies being accurate can mean failure.

So to me, unfortunately, "interpretation" has just as many negative connotations as "acting."

And anyway, I'm not arguing that we should change the terminology, since that's impossible and pointless and any word will take on its own meaning anyway.

I'm arguing that we can use the subtle nuances of performance art and apply them to whatever it is that we do at events. Or at least use the knowledge to figure out that reenactors are working at cross-purposes when some are enjoying the off-stage cast party after the play and others who hope to interact with them are, at the exact same time and place, doing performance art.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[AZReenactor]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Hank, thank you for presenting some good thought provoking ideas. These thoughts are quite timely as I'm currently in the process of reexamining my own historical interpretation bag of tricks and looking at incorporating more "acting" into it. Some 15 years ago I saw a historical interpreter presenting dramatically reciting portions of a man's diaries and letters to an audience. This one man stage show was well scripted and provided a powerful way of telling the emotions of history to life for the audience. The power of that presentation has stuck with me these many years not because of the accuracy of the costume, or content of the script but for the way it drew me into the story being presented in an emotional and engaging manner. Though just a spectator in front of a lighted stage, I found myself lost in the period moments being presented.

I had not closely considered the immersion reenacting experience as performance art with our fellow reenactors and ourselves as the audience. It makes a lot of sense and there may well be a good many things we can learn from actors to improve our reenacting experience. I look forward to reading the essay so that I might converse on this topic in more depth.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Mime, improv, etc……. are all interpretive forms of acting, in that the "actor" has freedom to interpret his character based on his own experiences and knowledge as opposed to pre-determined, fixed dialogue.

I don't view historical interpretation as limited at all, strictly educational in nature or always for a spectating audience. At the EBUFU level of advanced accomplishment, one puts forth an interpretation of a historical persona for other participants, many times completely absent of educational intent and often far from modern, uninvolved spectators and the level and commitment of one's interpretive ability (irrespective of the events one is suitable for or participates at)is reflected or manifested in the Pepsi can around the corner and the modern underware versus attention to researched detail.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

I don't view historical interpretation as limited at all, strictly educational in nature or always for a spectating audience.

I agree with you on that, actually. And personally, I like the term "interpretation," as long as it's not confused with that hokey first-person museum interpretation that looks like stage-acting (see Stacey Roth's book on it for an example--I'd rather be assaulted by a street mime than endure that kind of "interpretation"). But then, on the other hand, "performance art" lumps us in with the guy in gold body paint pretending to be a statue on the street corner, and that's no better!

So it's why the terminology itself doesn't interest me as much as the meanings behind it.

Here's a good example of what I consider to be the performance-art aspect.

A few years ago, I was at an event where two other reenactors were present, one who knew that I didn't drink at events and had iced tea in my flask, and the other who didn't know that but happened to work with substance-abusers in real life so she had some experience observing alcoholics.

After spending some time with me while I was portraying a hard-drinking lower-class laborer, the first one thought (as I found out later), "Why is he pouring iced tea in his glass of non-alcoholic eggnog?" The other thought, "I'm afraid that reenactor has a drinking problem."

To carry back to the original metaphor, the one who knew I was "working a cash register on stage" saw what I was doing as "acting." The one who didn't, thought I was really just "a clerk working a cash register" and saw what I was doing as "not acting."

There are lots of things in reenacting like that, in which the "stage" is invisible. A reenactor might actually be an alcoholic, a racist, a faithful Christian, have a German accent, whatever, in real life. There are other things where the stage is obviously visible--no modern person thinks Lincoln is President, the Confederate army is really attacking etc.

But one way of approaching reenacting or interpreting or whatever it is, is to try to perform at the same level for both those things, and the test of success comes if everything seems equally real, especially the things which might be real.

Obviously, I'm speaking of ideals again, here. No one can actually achieve this all the time or even most of the time. But it's one goal to shoot for, that I think ties into the same motive for accuracy that reenactors apply to getting all the stitches right in reproduction clothing, for example, so the reproduction is indistinguishable from an original.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Hank

You probably don't remember this but you and I once stood over a cauldron of boiling water at an event. As my little boy kept the fire fed with cut stobs and the coals glowed brightly.....I asked you if you thought that is 'what Hell might could be like " and we proceeded to discuss that in a period, first person manner.

Was it acting ? Performance art ? Not me. I view it, as a routine facet of research-based historical intrepretation undertaken at the expected, historically representative level of the event we were at.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Blair]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

I am kind of wondering, just who and how this "Performance Art/s" is to be rendered/determined?
An other words, who is it that gets the final say as to what is the most accurate interpretation of any given historical or acting scenario?
Perspectives vary greatly depending on the individual and their amount of study and research into any given subject matter. Acting or History.
I'm not saying one is more correct than another. What I am asking is just "who" is it that gets to determine which one is more or less accurate than another?
Historical Interpretation is as much about being able to interoperate history to the public as it is about interpretation of the questions asked by the public/visitor.
Acting, usually does not require or allow any public interaction of those involved in watching the "Play or Performance".
Historical Interpretation involves interaction with the public... and in this case the person involved in the interpretation, has no idea which direction the discussion will go until the question is asked.
The response can be done in the "first person" persona, which many visitors have trouble relating to. Or it can be conducted in a rather matter of fact manner of modern speech. Referring to modern things the visitor can relate to.

There are so many variables... when is one right, and another, not so right? And who is it that gets to say?

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

An other words, who is it that gets the final say as to what is the most accurate interpretation of any given historical or acting scenario?

For equally-supportable differences of opinon, I'd say that that question is outside the scope of this discussion. For example, should someone who's portraying Henry Wirz, the Andersonville commandant, primarily show his good side or his bad side? Well, there's no "right" answer. So it's up to the event, the individual doing the portrayal, or whatever. But portraying him either way is still performance art, or acting, or what have you. In fact, if Henry Wirz himself showed up at an event out of a time machine and people could actually meet him, some might differ in their opinion of whether he was a good guy or a bad guy and he might show either side in any particular circumstance. So even importing the guy wholesale from the past wouldn't solve the question.

However, for obvious, inarguable facts, I'd say that the answer is actually the key to the whole difference between what I'm talking about, and other kinds of reenacting.

If somebody carries a modern camera and sneaks pictures during a reenactment, that's no longer the hobby I'm talking about, that's something else, because it's obvious that no one in the 1860s carried a modern camera and did that. If a reenactor portraying Henry Wirz said, "In the time period after I'm portraying, Wirz went on to do such-and-such," that's also obviously inaccurate: it's completely implausible that Henry Wirz would ever have spoken those words, so that too is no longer the hobby I'm talking about.

Most inaccuracies that reenactors choose aren't subtle or controversial at all--they're blatant and clear-cut, whether they're chosen out of necessity (someone who needs modern blood pressure medication to stay healthy) or on a whim (someone who's bored with history now so they find somebody to talk to about next month's event).

Acting, usually does not require or allow any public interaction of those involved in watching the "Play or Performance".
Historical Interpretation involves interaction with the public...

Again, you're working from a narrow definition of acting. Think of dealing with hecklers. Think of street magicians. And those are still pretty classic examples of acting, and not even trying to stretch the envelope into performance art.

The response can be done in the "first person" persona, which many visitors have trouble relating to. Or it can be conducted in a rather matter of fact manner of modern speech. Referring to modern things the visitor can relate to.

That's why I don't think the term "interpreting" is a good one either, because you're getting caught up in "museum interpretation" and missing what I'm talking about.

In the kind of reenacting I'm talking about, the person can't answer "in a rather matter of fact manner of modern speech" or refer to modern things the visitor can relate to, except by pure coincidence. Yes, that's good interpretation, but it's historically inaccurate, because someone in the 1860s wouldn't even care if what he was saying was relevant or understandable to someone who didn't also live in the 1860s.

I like museum-style interpretation; I like relating to modern visitors while portraying someone from the past. But it necessarily puts an upper limit on accuracy.

When reenacting with other reenactors, I used to think that the accuracy would increase, since they should be interested in history already and understand the 1860s enough to be able to relate to obscure subtleties.

Ironically though, in my experience, it's often possible to find modern visitors who are fascinated with an edgy bit of performance art, and to find many reenactors who just see it as an interruption of their modern after-hours cast party.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[MissChris]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

I find myself in a unique position in regards to this thread. I am in fact a degree holding actor/performer (from the college of the individual who wrote the thesis and knows several of the advisors non-the-less!) as well as a reenactor. I have even reenacted acting (most recently with Mockingbird Theatre Co)!

I have found that the two communities rarely see themselves connecting and I think it is a great loss both to stage performers/dramaturgs (those who research the history and time periods of plays to create more realistic and historical authentic productions) as well as historical interpreters and reenactors. I have found that both could greatly inform and better both fields.

I pose to you the following: Have you ever been to a play or watched a movie that brought you to tears or moved you to action? Actors have the power to remove us from our current time and place (take for example the boom of flims during the Great Depression) no matter our surroundings or how terrible our circumstance and transport us to a different time and place. They can move us to action, entertain, and enlighten. How great would it be to be at an event where all the participants had and were using this gift? The vendors selling lemon shake-ups no longer noticed, the flushing toilets no longer a distraction. Some reenactors call this moment "time travel" in acting, we call it simply "our job."

Behind every great performance is a TON of research. One method of acting called the Stanislavski method (or Method Acting) asks the performer to do exactly what the person would have done in that particular situation. Before an event, how many of us change our hair-car regeime or otherwise alter our daily lives just to make our emmersion deeper when we get to the event. I believe that whether the Core movement realizes it or not, we are ALL METHOD ACTORS. :) We don the clothes of those who wore them, go by different names, live in the conditions and foodways of the time, and entertain ourselves as they did then. For the reenactor, this is just GOOD REENACTING! :)

To me the actor/reenactor, they go hand in hand. Two powerful engines of learning and research that could be better fueling one another. Both performing and reenacting transport a viewer and/or participant to another time or place. I believe that any good reenactor is and actor and any actor who properly researches their historical work is also a reenactor.

Both the actor and the reenactor try their best not to break character but to perform/portray their roles to the best of their ability. I find myself just as discouraged when I break character at an event as I would if I broke character on the stage.

As for the backstage aspect of events, I have found that some events truly do have a sort of "onstage/offstage" set up. So I guess the question is; what is it for each reenactor that causes them to break character? For the actor, they are finished with a performance (for the Method Actor is is when the ENTIRE RUN of the show is over, whereas for some it is the second they take a step off the stage.) I think reenactors are sort of the same. For some, authenticity ends when the spectators go home, whereas some take parts of their interpretation and performance into their everyday lives.

The lines between acting, interpreting, and performing are ones that many museums struggle with every day. I hope that through discussions like these we can help to better our community and our world by helping create historical actors who are knowledgeable, tactful, instructing, and inspiring for generations to come.

As for the term "performance art", reenacting is most like the "happenings" of the theatrical DADA movement in the 1960s where people were told (or not told) that some sort of "performance" was going to occur at a particular time and place. Without knowing what they were going to witness, people would show up to be a part of the happening. Sometimes, the people who showed up were part of an audience, but sometimes they were truly part of the performance. (Sometimes they WERE THE ENTIRE performance and didn't know it!) For the reenactor, many times they just know to show up and a few details. They grab their gear and go just to be a part of the "happening", the event. Although they know when/where to show up, they don't know all the details. (Were the men at Bummers thinking when they arrived at the event that they would see the characters Liz Landrum and Carrie Craddock were portraying deliver a baby just as they burst into her house? To me, this was a little "happening.")

I look forward to truly delving into this thesis! (lol and it looks like I might have started one of my own!) Thank you so much for posting this and starting this great discussion.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Thanks for posting! Very cool to hear from someone in your position.

How great would it be to be at an event where all the participants had and were using this gift? The vendors selling lemon shake-ups no longer noticed, the flushing toilets no longer a distraction. Some reenactors call this moment "time travel" in acting, we call it simply "our job."

Exactly.

But what I don't get is why, no matter how good the setting, there's often some reenactor, or more than one, who deliberately try to ruin that time travel illusion for others. They're like people who'd talk loudly on cell phones during a movie that others are trying to enjoy.

But again, because there's no consensus about what reenacting is, there's not necessarily even a consensus that what they're doing is even rude. While they think they're at a cast party, others are still producing the play.

I believe that whether the Core movement realizes it or not, we are ALL METHOD ACTORS. :) We don the clothes of those who wore them, go by different names, live in the conditions and foodways of the time, and entertain ourselves as they did then. For the reenactor, this is just GOOD REENACTING! :)

Yep.

As for the backstage aspect of events, I have found that some events truly do have a sort of "onstage/offstage" set up.

Yes, and I find that a shame. Or, I should say, I realize that in some cases it's necessary, because the 186x world has to end somewhere, so yes, rather than slaughter a steer from a herd of cattle, the army might need to go out to a cooler in a truck and bring back a joint of beef, for example.

But what I find a shame is that many reenactors actually revel in the "backstage." They seem to enjoy that more than the reenacting and prefer to hang out there and can't wait for the reenacting to end. That's their hobby, of course, and it's different from mine.

The old thing about "still going to the wrong events" is the usual solution, but at this level, the "right events" are very hard to find; there's a lot of compromise at every event.

As for the term "performance art", reenacting is most like the "happenings" of the theatrical DADA movement in the 1960s where people were told (or not told) that some sort of "performance" was going to occur at a particular time and place. Without knowing what they were going to witness, people would show up to be a part of the happening. Sometimes, the people who showed up were part of an audience, but sometimes they were truly part of the performance. (Sometimes they WERE THE ENTIRE performance and didn't know it!)

Exactly! There's more to the definition of "acting" than just sitting in a theater watching a three-act play.

Here's a question. I'm assuming you'd "act" very differently when you're portraying someone on stage in the 1860s vs when you're portraying someone in the 1860s not on stage. In other words, on stage, you'd aim for more theatricality--projecting your voice, enunciating, playing to the audience, seeming "larger than life." Off stage, although you're still acting, the goal would be entirely different, since you're trying to appear as if you're not acting.

I think one thing that turns off some reenactors is that they believe all acting must be the stage-type acting, and therefore if they act while reenacting that's what they need to do. When in fact, that would be a poor example of reenacting, as wrong as wearing a stage costume rather than reproduction clothing, because it would seem hokey and fake. It's only considered good in the context of the stage, just as a theatrical costume is only considered good in the context of the stage; in the context of reenacting, the goal is different.

Both the actor and the reenactor try their best not to break character but to perform/portray their roles to the best of their ability. I find myself just as discouraged when I break character at an event as I would if I broke character on the stage.

That's a rare philosophy, but I'd like to find more reenactors like that. What events are you going to next? We're from Ohio--is there anything close by this summer that you'd recommend? I don't have anything planned until In the Van in August, then the Boonesfield Village revival in Missouri in September and Westville in Georgia in October. Are you going to any of those, by the way?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[MissChris]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Here's a question. I'm assuming you'd "act" very differently when you're portraying someone on stage in the 1860s vs when you're portraying someone in the 1860s not on stage. In other words, on stage, you'd aim for more theatricality--projecting your voice, enunciating, playing to the audience, seeming "larger than life." Off stage, although you're still acting, the goal would be entirely different, since you're trying to appear as if you're not acting

It's true, there are a lot of different layers when portraying a period actor. You first have to be the person then you have to be the person/character they are portraying (of course, in the very melodramatic style of the time) and then there is you underneath it all. It creates a wonderful challenge for the actor that I really enjoy. As I am relatively new to the hobby (less than five or so years) I have yet to encounter some of the prejudices against acting, but I could see how people could get confused. Period Acting and Reenacting the period are not necessarily the same thing. :) Large gestures, my correctly( but shockingly) short for the period ballet costumes, and other such things were part of the entertainment of the time. Just like we might watch a soap opera on t.v. but we don't act like that in real life, reenactors should not mimic the acting styles of the time unless they are part of a production. This is why having accurate productions and performances is a wonderful additional layer to any event.

I'm not doing many events this year, as I'm getting married in the Fall and there are lots of things to do for that. :) I'm not sure what Mockingbird is doing this year. For the last few years, I have mostly done work with the WIG, GHTI, the "WIGGLETS" (the new girlie contingent of the WIG), events around Franklin TN, and the like. Mockingbird Theatre Co. has gone in a different historical direction. Last year, they built a new cast and performed at Renn faires and Wild West shows.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

It's true, there are a lot of different layers when portraying a period actor. You first have to be the person then you have to be the person/character they are portraying (of course, in the very melodramatic style of the time) and then there is you underneath it all. It creates a wonderful challenge for the actor that I really enjoy.

Reminds me of my narrow escape from being recaptured by the Confederates at Bummers, when I was pretending to be someone who was pretending to be dead. Only a lot moreso. :) It sounds challenging, but fascinating. I just have no talent for stage acting.

From your previous post:

I find myself just as discouraged when I break character at an event as I would if I broke character on the stage.

So here's the sixty-four thousand dollar question:

How do you stay in character when everyone around you at a reenactment (or almost everyone) has broken character? Or, if that's not an issue, how do you avoid such a situation?

Personally, my choices for dealing with it, in a heirarchy from best to worst, are:

--Finding a group attending an event who's agreed to stay in character and pre-arranging to spend most of the event with them.

--Talking about something that will bring the people around me back in character.

--Talking across centuries so I stay in character but can still relate to what they're talking about, like at the last event when a young boy was talking about motorboats and I could contribute by talking about rowing, so we both could carry on a conversation.

--Walking away so I'm alone where there's no need to talk or respond. (This is frustrating and sometimes results in what I call "being chased around the event site by farbs," when first one then another dominant personality comes up to where I am, parks himself and talks away about modern things, until I move elsewhere and the cycle repeats.)

--Being stuck in the area and outnumbered by reenactors with no interest in recreating the 1860s, so I just have to be silent and listen to their modern talk. A total waste of time.

At most events these days, I can stay with the top two or three options, mostly in the top one or two, and I'm pretty happy with that. I can recall the bad old days, when I was less skillfull at picking events and there were fewer events to pick from, and I spent way too much time in the bottom two or three.

But I'm curious how you (or others) handle it and what you've found works, so you don't have to deliberately lower your accuracy level and yet can relate with fellow reenactors throughout the event. Lord knows, my accuracy level is low enough without deliberately making it less, LOL!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Horace]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Well, I'll toss this out there. It's been touched on that part of the problem with first person is that there aren't any rules for it; that possibly there should be guidelines for it the same way that there are gudelines for what a person wears at an event.

What would some good guidelines for behavior at an immersion event be?

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Well, I'll toss this out there. It's been touched on that part of the problem with first person is that there aren't any rules for it; that possibly there should be guidelines for it the same way that there are gudelines for what a person wears at an event.

What would some good guidelines for behavior at an immersion event be?

It'd be real simple. The main problem I see is that people don't want to do it.

Don't say anything modern, unless there's an emergency, from the designated starting time to the designated ending time.

Or instead of "time," it might be "place," i.e. whenever you arrive within the event boundaries or the camp or whatever, whether it's Friday noon or 11 p.m.

That'd be a minimum.

Or, better yet:

Always act or react the way the person you're portraying would most likely do, unless there's an emergency, from start to end.

Really not complicated. The complications come, I think, in appeasing those who say, "but I need to catch up on modern socializing with my friends." Or, "the public's gone now so we can have our fun." Or, "but someone needs to take modern pictures." Or whatever.

Edited to add: I've reenacted with several groups of people who adopted exactly these rules and it's worked very well, so it isn't hypothetical.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com