Living History as Performance Art

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Not a rule.....more of a truism

Firper dialogue doesn't have to always require a "made up" story or response.

Improve your knowledge and command of the period lexicon / colloquialisms; then speak of things in the present at events (not the tired old "back on the farm") as they unfold.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Horace]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Hank said "The main problem I see is that people don't want to do it."

That seems to me to be the practical issue.

In the 1960s you could turn the collar up on a blue sport coat and it passed for a Federal fatigue jacket. Now a museum quality reproduction is easy to find and people don't make compromises. But you can't hold a conversation in your hand and count the stitiches.

As you stated in your last post, Hank, the way to do it ultimately is simple. You do it. But people don't. Are there any practical real time starting points that could be considered?

One thought relates to the comparison of the performance to the back stage party. One issue there is that the "back stage party" wanders through the "performance" at will. Is there a way to at least inhibit that from happening? Is there a way to divide a space between people who are focused on thinking and talking in a period way and people who aren't, so that a person can enter and leave rather than be either "firper" or "non firper"? At that point. "non firper" might consider the fact that he/she's spent $1500 to look like a person from the 1860s, and could walk a few feet and get into thinking like one for a while for free. Just a thought.

The first person bugbear is just another tool to use in the attempt to squint at the experience of another time. It seems like we get tangled up in the the method and forget the goal.

[Blair]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

I have seen various institution that have implemented various types of interpretations for their character actors.
First are those at Plymouth Plantation, 1627-9. Next would be those character actors at Colonial Williamsburg.
These guys never came out of character, even if they were taking a break from the normal publics questioning. It was too difficult to get back into Character.
At Plymouth Plantation, they even taught language skills for those interperaterstors speaking to the public in first person.
Much of this was based off of Shakespearian plays as well as Court written Documents that have survived from the 1630's.
Is this correct? Perhaps not, but it is the only documentation that is available! So, it could be? Who are we to say 400 years after the fact.
My honest opinion is that they, the public, walked away very confussed.
The problem with this type of interpretation is that it did not allow the visiting public to have a change to interact with those interpreters.
They, the interpreters, were so locked into their period personas, they could not answer the publics most basic questions. Should the question relate to a modern concept... they had to reply with, "I know not of what you speak."
Learning and education ends when the interpreter/actor has no ability to discuss what is happening in a way people can relate.
This maybe a very cool way to conduct a history lesson, but it is not very educational, for the illiterate and uninformed.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

My honest opinion is that they, the public, walked away very confussed.

I worked for two summers at Conner Prairie, a site similar to Williamsburg or Plimoth, except it's 1836 Indiana, doing that very thing, talking to hundreds of modern visitors in first person, all day, eight hours a day, five or six days a week. My honest opinion is that they, the public, did not walk away very confused, and for the most part enjoyed the experience.

No form of interpretation reaches all people. But I see no reason why people who enjoy movies, plays and video games should be denied that kind of imaginative time travel illusion experience, because some people don't want it. Personally, I find the classic docent-led house tour excrutiatingly boring, and a poor way to learn anything, but apparently some people like it. For those people, let house tours be given. For people like me, let there be other interpretation.

Overall, though, my experience has been that reenactors and people who are most familiar with reenactors and reenacting are the least apt to "get it," because they've been trained that reenactors rarely portray the people they're dressed as, and visitors coming in cold for the first time to living history, who are used to seeing people in costume act the way they're dressed (based on movies, plays, etc.), are the most apt to "get it." For example, this ramen noodle story. Even though we'd talked for a while first, the guard had no clue I was in character all the time. The visitors who came up seemed to have no problem figuring it out after a few sentences.

The problem with this type of interpretation is that it did not allow the visiting public to have a change to interact with those interpreters.
They, the interpreters, were so locked into their period personas, they could not answer the publics most basic questions. Should the question relate to a modern concept... they had to reply with, "I know not of what you speak."

Only a very inexperienced or inept interpreter would get stuck like that very often. I'd say that only about once a week would I come head-to-head with a visitor who didn't get the concept and insisted on asking an irrelevant question to the point that I'd just have to give up and end the conversation. Considering we had from a couple hundred to 1500 visitors a day, that's a miniscule percentage.

First person interpretation, though, is designed to answer one question: What would it be like to step back in time and meet someone from the past? It answers that question better, I think, than any other form of interpretation there is.

But let's say that I grant you all that. Let's say that first person interpretation is a lousy way to teach history and the public doesn't get it. Okay, fine. This thread isn't about the classic museum-style first-person interpretation anyway, because as I've said in previous posts, it places an artificial limit on accuracy.

Consider all the reenactments that don't have spectators (or have after-hours times without spectators), where everyone who attends can self-select and be informed exactly what's going on and study in advance. What about those? That's where I think reenacting as performance art can be done with the least impediments to the most appreciative audience. As in any situation, those most educated about any kind of art will appreciate nuances of that art more than someone with little interest or little clue.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

I wonder whether some events might not be helped by a physical barrier of some kind, be it a correct fence, a stream or what have you, beyond which it's July 1863. Those who wish to socialize in non-period ways or who need to have non-period discussions are welcome to step across the barrier and have their conversation out of sight and hearing of 1863. The rare exceptions are real emergencies--not minor quibbles or things that wouldn't bother us in the 1860s, but life-threatening EMERGENCIES.

In the case of a place where there is an expected need to have non-period conversations (you know severe weather may be approaching, someone HAS to have a method of contact, there may be Park Service concerns of some kind...) the best course might be to set up a correct office with a door that can, and would normally, be closed. I'm looking out at my neighbor's 1830s springhouse at the moment; something like it, appropriate to the situation, would do nicely on several counts. It belongs to the scene, nothing would be unusual about seeing someone go in there, and one would not normally leave the door open during chores, especially not on a hot day.

As for the socializing, a non-period meet before the event or an after party would serve the purpose, wouldn't they? Once again, the parking lot may be in 2010, but over that rise and beyond that row of berry bushes, it's 1864 or when may be.

[Spinster]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Having spent a portion of last weekend silent, listening to men talk (appropriate to my character) or complaining (also appropriate), I finally got a clue on my own comfort zone when I was aiding a young woman with a recalcitrant spinning wheel.

We could conduct our mechanical work 'in period' with no problem, and did so. The things wrong with the wheel required leather and oil and beeswax, just at it would during the period. I found myself momentarily annoyed when I sent a little child to borrow some beeswax from her mother's sewing basket, and what came back was one of those modern plastic wax holders. Still, I could strip the plastic off and redirect myself and the conversation at the same time.

My own hurdle is that I am extremely task oriented in real life--I rarely engage in idle or even polite conversation much on a modern basis, so the period "HowsYoreMama" or "HowAboutThemMules" or "HotEnoughForYou" is a difficult social skill for me.

What was easier in the course of the weekend was engaging those who did not 'get it' and quietly moving that conversation to another location---whether it was the impeccably dressed man dangling a plastic coffee cup, or the young man with the glowing, singing pocket.........

And, for events where the crowd is 'mixed', persons willing to take that role as needed may need to be a part of the plan.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

My own hurdle is that I am extremely task oriented in real life--I rarely engage in idle or even polite conversation much on a modern basis, so the period "HowsYoreMama" or "HowAboutThemMules" or "HotEnoughForYou" is a difficult social skill for me.

And yet, note that that wouldn't be a bit outside of the lines I suggested above:

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

If the person you're portraying wouldn't chitchat, well, that solves that.

The modern wrapper on the beeswax, on the other hand, if it would have been easy to remove, is a different mindset. Why bring unnecessary, easy-to-remove modern stuff into "1869" in the first place?

Different hobby.

I was thinking about this whole topic while out digging footers for our back steps this morning, and it occurred to me: Why do I even care? What difference does this make? Why even bother with "performance art" or whatever one wants to call it?

Here's my answer. History for me has always been more about people than things. Sure, battlefield preservation and preservation of artifacts are important and intrinsically tied to history. But when the original sites or artifacts are gone, the next best thing, as a way to keep the memory alive, is to create a reproduction. I grew up where there was a reproduction of the Old North Bridge where the Minutemen fought in Concord, and you can bet that it made more people picture more vividly what happened, than if the river had been left bare there because the original bridge was washed away.

Okay, so, there are no people from the 1860s left. What's the next best thing? A reproduction, obviously. Hopefully, a well-researched reproduction, as accurate as practical.

I know that most of the population doesn't care about history. That's just a fact. Battlefields get turned into malls, old stuff is left to deteriorate.

And yet, what's sad and frustrating and tragic to me, is that the very people who you'd think would care most about history--reenactors during a historic reenactment--show how they'd treat someone from the past by the way they treat all that's left, a reproduction.

If someone from the past showed up at a lot of reenactments, we can see he'd be pushed away, ignored, seen as an interruption to the real focus of the weekend--modern socializing, discussion of past and future events, shopping, talking about research, and so forth.

Oh, sure, reenactors would say that if someone from the past really did show up, they'd care. They just don't care about a reproduction. And that's certainly a valid point--a reproduction is only as useful as the research behind it, and like most forum members, I encourage reenactors to go to the original sources and not base their impressions reproductions.

But if there weren't some magic and imagination involved, we'd never bother with living history. We'd just study primary sources, or do a bit of experimental archaeology only long enough to answer a question.

So here's where the magic comes: What if someone from the past didn't show up in a puff of smoke and a blaze of glory, stepping out of a time machine? What if he (or she) just quietly wandered in?

When I started reenacting, that's what I always secretly imagined. Wouldn't it be cool? Wouldn't it be wonderful? Wouldn't it be great to feel as if subtle magic like that was happening, even if I knew it was only pretend? And I'm not nuts in this. That's why people go to movies and plays and read novels--to feel that magic of the impossible becoming possible, even though they know it's only pretend.

I've gotten that magic from situations or from other reenactors at events, and it's a magic I'd like to give back to the hobby, having faith that even if most reenactors don't care, some do. If those who care come together at an event, in greater numbers, all actively trying to give that magic to each other, none trying to tear it down or stay away from it, that's what makes a "right event" for me.

But I also care because, if even reenactors would reject or ignore someone from the past during a reenactment, well, then, the generation of the 1860s is truly dead and unwanted. It's over. We've all moved on to our own modern lives and forgotten about them. We may care about the artifacts and the skills and the land, but the people aren't wanted anymore. And I think that's a shame. I'd like to believe otherwise. Which is why I'm interested in reenacting as performance art.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Spinster]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

.

The modern wrapper on the beeswax, on the other hand, if it would have been easy to remove, is a different mindset. Why bring unnecessary, easy-to-remove modern stuff into "1869" in the first place?

Different hobby.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Yep. Thankfully, I could pop the plastic cover off, conceal it in my skirting, and pop it back on before returning it.
My real problem may have been overthinking my character. In portraying the wealthy Mrs. Russell, I left behind my usual impedimentia of workbaskets and piles of mending---and thus my own sewing kit, with its hand cast beeswax block. And, even walking over to help the young spinster might have been out of character,given social class lines, but I was just so twitchy without something to DO, and there was this fine wheel.........

And Mrs. Russell, being from rural Missouri, was no stranger to that...

[flattop32355]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

If we wish to apply a narrow interpretation to the meaning of the word "acting" (which would include "reenacting"), we may do so, at our leisure. That does not change the fact that it can include other aspects, as well, particularly in other people's definitiions. This can also include that which transcends simply "acting".

When I think of acting, in its traditional form, I mostly think of it in the form of play-acting; that is, acting out a role that has been scripted out for me to study and learn (memorize), then put into production, nearly word for word as scripted, but allowing for the actor's unique interpretation within that script. This seems to hold true for many historical interpreters.

Now, consider what happened Saturday evening between you and I at Perryville on the Farm, Hank, after the others had gone to bed. In spite of (or maybe because of) my limited knowledge of the setting and characters, including my own, something special happened.

I cannot speak for what occurred within you (although I think it did), but I know that, for me, something deeper than mere "acting" took place in those hours of our conversation. Somewhere along the way, I (we) passed from the acting of parts into "being" the parts. Modern reference and mentality faded far, far into the background. We moved from reciting an (unscripted) script into becoming the characters we were portraying, to the point of losing modern perspective and being enmeshed in our "selves" of the period. My frame of reference became 1869; my mind set in the period without other, outside considerations. It became comfortable, easy, and natural to be there. I was not in another time, because there was no other time; just the here (then) and now.

It was an exquisite experience. Aided by the efforts of the others involved previously that evening, the depth and impact of the transition was tremendous, carrying over into the next day. On Sunday after the auction, when Mrs. Simpson told me, in our camp, that we were done, I was actually taken aback for a moment. I literally took a step back from her, stared at her, blinked, and had to shift mental gears to come back into the modern world again.

I have acted in plays before. I have acted the role of other people/characters. That night, it went beyond acting; it became as real as I can imagine it ever can be.

More than a period moment....A period experience.

[Spinster]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Doc,

Even after I withdrew as a lady should, and simply listened to that conversation, I knew you were....... Then.

This state requires a certain amount of imagination. Darkness helps, but the mind must be able to select what is important and what is not relevant to the scene. You processed the sound of coyotes in one way, and that sound entered into the conversation............you ignored the glow of security lights from the museum just beyound the trees.

The ability to deselect with that which cannot or should not be changed is vital to the mindset.

Today, I'm repackaging a number of items for In The Van. Some things are easy to bag just as they would have been during the period, and will never interrupt the moment if the sacking breaks. Others are things that simply did not exist, but are necessary to the health and safety of the livestock under our care. I can box those items in a period appropriate container, secure the lid, and they will move without jarring the mindset until and unless they are used.

And at that moment, attitude become everything. Some folks cannot ignore such things, and obsess over them. Others can gloss over them in order to reach for the larger goal.

I somehow have the feeling you are amoung the latter. Next month, on day seven, coming up out of the woods may take some doing......

[LindaTrent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Bernie, those feelings that you mentioned I know all too well. I bring this story up quite a bit, but it bears repeating here: I remember my feelings at War on the James, (an event that will forever live in my mind as the greatest reenactment of all-time, and can never be equaled or excelled). What was simply so amazing was how it all fell together, the deep thought provoking questions, the hope, and then the despair. I was portraying a widow who lost everything except her 12 year old daughter. Hank was my beau who still had a nice plantation home, and the others in our group were my in-laws. Around mid-morning on the first day my daughter began asking questions -- What's slavery? Why do we own slaves? and the questions continued to roll off her tongue. I answered her questions to her satisfaction and then the two sides noticed each other and started fighting. We all went silent and waited it out. To make a long story short Hank's character, along with a couple of other guys decided to try to bushwhack what they thought was a small patrol, and Hank was killed. His body laid in the road until we could get up and move him into camp. He laid there till it was time for bed, when we placed him along the road for his darkey to retrieve and take home.

Our conversations that night were primarily from my daughter asking about ghosts, God and Heaven. And my conversations, after my daughter went to bed, that I had with my family were about what I was going to do now. Not being married to him and not being in his will I had no legal right to his plantation, where was I going to live? The entire experience from start to finish was so surreal! It was simply fantastic! Anyone who has not had this experience doesn't know what they're missing.

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

The ability to ignore intrusions must vary from person to person. As you note, the forest is beautiful; please do not become angered by the mark on the bark of one tree.

We were able to stay at the Hermitage in Petersburg, WV last weekend. Yes, I know there were all sorts of modern intrusions, but it's still a fine old house with a rich history.

Many years ago, when I could still go to reenactments, I was walking through the woods with a berry basket when I heard one side stirring...
...and then the other...
...and they weren't more than a hundred yards apart,and I was in the middle...
Now, I knew it was a reenactment, but in that moment the only thought in my head was "They're going to start shooting, and what do I do now?"

Being able to spend the night makes history sharper; we're all used to museums where people go home at five, but when the sun goes down and the birds roost something in our psyche begins to whisper This is real.

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Double post

[MissMia]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

This thread is brilliant.
I've been inspired by the responses, and thought I'd peek in.

For me, portraying a house slave or free woman has really put the 'acting' in re-enacting, as my 21st century outgoing/friendly/outspoken personality has to become a blank canvas for a whole new mindset, and response, especially to the public.
When I re-enact, my character's whole understanding of the world is totally different than who I am 21st century wise. Its all a state of mind.
I agree with Becky, when you stay at an event overnight--things are different..By day 3 I'm 'used' to it, and for a moment its easy to think 'this is real'.

[LindaTrent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

I just want to clarify that while my post talked a lot about things that happened after dark, the same experience is felt from the moment the event goes live on Friday (or whatever day it starts) until the event breaks up on Sunday. I don't personally care if I stay the night or not, it just kind of depends upon what my character would have done, and what everyone wants to do later into the evening -- I know I want to stay in character whether I'm staying on site or off.

The thing that gets me is that reenactors often say that they don't want to do first person for the public because the public doesn't 'get it.' But the truth of the matter is, I think it's that the reenactors just plain don't want it, otherwise why not kick into character after the public leaves? Even the so-called "right events" have problems when the rules state that if you want to talk modern you leave the immediate area and do it discretely; yet those who should be enforcing the very rules are among those talking about modern things right in the middle of everything. That's why it's so important to me to have others of a like mind to reenact with. Having like minded people in a group allows for the "them" moments to continue not just for a minute or two, but from start to finish.

Linda.