Living History as Performance Art

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Hank,
I was watching "Back to the Future" with my boys last night and I thought.... it would be a great idea for you to create an associate degree program at a community college, or even maybe you could get a online degree program to support it. I'm sure you could combine it in the History and Theater Programs.

Funny you'd mention that. Actually, I first started volunteering in living history in 1988 (I think) at a site that was a workshop for students of a college living history interpretation program, Robbins Crossing in Nelsonville, Ohio, for Hocking College. http://www.hocking.cc.oh.us/attracti...sing/index.htm I wasn't interested in the program, just in volunteering, but they let people like me volunteer without taking the classes. I found out about Civil War reenacting a few months later, though always preferred the civilian village atmosphere more than the military.

The problem is that most college programs are aimed at things people can make a living at, or at least things which are generally widely recognized to exist as a genre, which means living history interpretation. And, usually, what reenactors would call, um, "farby" living history--well below the accuracy of c/p/h events. Robbins Crossing was certainly that way--I was that way when I volunteered there. Here's a recent photo of a woman demonstrating quilting there, representing circa 1850: http://www.athensohio.com//upload_fi...s/Robbins4.jpg

While I find the theory and practice of living history interpretation somewhat interesting, there are already quite a few college programs centered around that. I'm more interested in exploring living history outside of (or beyond) interpretation, and I think it's just too narrow and off-the-wall of a sub-sub-sub genre to even explain to a college. Heck, it's hard enough to explain to reenactors!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[flattop32355]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

I get a little uncomfortable around people who are really good at doing first person impressions. I'm always afraid I'm going to say something wrong and pee in their punch bowl. I wonder if other people have the same issues?

Bill, some of my first efforts at trying first person included heavy doses of "Be Quiet, Just Listen".

There's also a prominent belief (or so it seems to me), that first person requires one to actively push/inject themselves into conversations, activities, etc. My experience has been that much of it comes naturally if one simply sinks into the surroundings present at the scenario, filtering out the modern intrusions as possible (It's hard to filter out a pickup truck that's about to run over you...). The mind adjusts, and one can talk about the common occurances that are happening in the camp, on the field, or pick up on someone else's subject line with simple statements and questions that don't require a lot of background knowledge.

Hank loves to research the bejesus out of subjects and settings. He also likes to go off on wild tangents. :) (Coyotes buying train tickets, anyone?) While I'm not big at initiating items of conversation, I can bounce off those things he begins, and simply fall into the flow. It works well for us.

Also, first person isn't just conversation. My first real dip into it was with Hank at an uber-farby attempt at Andersonville. He was finishing up a coat made of blanket scraps as one of the prisoners. It dawned on me that the coat was going to need buttons. So I found a stick about an inch in diameter and started sawing into it with my knife. It was a slow process, and it generated questions of "What are you doing?" "Wait and see..." was the response, and it generated a level of interest and excitement for us bored prisoners. When the first button was done, I presented it to Hank, who was thrilled. More followed, with great sadness expressed by all if one broke in the cutting. That small idea ended up being an hours-long vignette within the event, with conversations generated and other projects begun (a scrap of gum blanket, wood ash and sticks to make a checkerboard and pieces).

I don't claim to be good at first person. But I do know that it's not as hard as some would make it out to be, if one just lets it come in the natural flow of the event.

[Bill]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

.

But on another level, I find reenactors who have the attitude of "we'll do you a favor and leave you alone so as not to spoil your experience" very annoying, as if they think they're doing me some kind of favor when they're really giving a back-handed slap.

Edited to add: And what Linda said, too. I didn't see her post before I replied. We're not really trying to do a good-cop/bad-cop routine, LOL!

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Hank,

I should have been more direct in my post. Very frankly, when I wrote it. I was thinking of you and the conversations we've had, over the years, at a number of events. At the conclusion, I'm usually vaguely uncomfortable about what I said, and more important, the words I used to say it. Most of the folks I deal with are about as equally bad, as I am, at doing first person. I figure if I screw up they won't even notice, or if they do notice, not care. I also figure people, like yourself, who are excellent at doing time travel, will notice and care.

BTW, I really liked what the "good-cop" had to say about my insecurity.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Contrived dialogue, as it becomes too far removed from the immediate, most frequently sounds: Contrived .......... and is accompanied by that noticeable change in the inflection, projection and timbre into one's falsetto "stage" voice.

It is the "performance art" equivalency of the 80/20 wool Pakistani fatigue blouse.

Christopher Rideout
Tampa, Florida



.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

As long as I can talk about money, paperwork, or plumbing, I can sneak by. I've sort of come to see at least the first two of these topics as my "portable first person." It doesn't matter who you are or where you are, if you know a bit about how the army runs and what you do or don't get paid, you can find something to creatively complain about. Civilian impressions seem to present a bigger challenge, but I'm reading up.

I also like to read up a little before an event to find something special one can use. At "War on the James" we portrayed a Connecticut regiment raised near Hartford. A few months before the event a big contemporary controversy broke about slave insurance, and a study came out discussing how the system worked, with examples of insured values and typical premiums. Suddenly I knew what the regimental clerk did before he lost his job and went for a soldier.

I didn't think I'd have to use any of this material -- it was just interesting to know. But then I ended up guarding Fran Kiger, a suspected spy. We were alone for about a hour while Cross was interrogating some other poor civilian, so in the end I was glad to have something to talk about.

I sort of cringe at the idea of "performance," though. I would like to have enough stuff in the tool box not to have to act.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

I sort of cringe at the idea of "performance," though. I would like to have enough stuff in the tool box not to have to act.

When people say that, I don't understand what they mean. How can a normal person ever, even in theory, not "act" (pretend to be someone other than oneself) during a reenactment, without being inaccurate a lot of the time? Not there's anything wrong with being inaccurate--it's called third person interpretation, among other things. But unless reenactors believe they're really trying to kill the enemy, or really have no access to modern conveniences a mile or two away, or really have no memories of modern things to talk about, they're acting.

A case in point about "not acting": the fellow who repeatedly kept reminding us that the repro money wasn't real so his bets didn't matter, during a poker game at event. He wasn't acting--he was absolutely sincere, since like everyone else, he knew it wasn't the 1860s and the money was fake. If I'd been at a fun modern game where we were betting popcorn pieces or something, I'd have said the same things. But the rest of us were trying to act as if the repro money was real, even if it only involved not saying the money was fake. He didn't seem to care that he was tearing down the moment that we were trying to create. What one chooses not to do requires just as much "acting" as what one does. It goes back to the basics of motivation--if the person you're portraying wouldn't be motivated to say something, then don't say it.

How can one try to recreate the 1860s and yet not "act"?

Honestly, when it comes to portraying racism, war crimes, threats, violence and so forth, I really wouldn't want to attend events where people didn't have to act.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Bill Cross]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

I sort of cringe at the idea of "performance," though. I would like to have enough stuff in the tool box not to have to act.

I think that using the term "performance" is actually going to mislead some folks, especially those who are afraid of immersion events.

I have only "acted" a few times at events because something in the situation required it. At "Into the Wilderness," one of the company commanders (who had been foisted on me and not picked by me) bolted and left the regiment "blind" while the Rebs snuck up on us. I could not rebuke the man and risk him walking off (he saved that for Saturday night when he skedaddled without telling any of the commanding officers). So I picked an elaborate quarrel with Mike Murley, my immediate superior, which resulted in him placing me "under arrest." The men in the ranks knew we were aware of the company commanders boo-boo, so it didn't fester.

But mostly I find that the emotions of the situation supply all that one needs to be immersed. If relaxing, one can sleep, prepare food or coffee, talk with messmates. If active in a command or rank&file role, then simply doing military things will keep you in period. If in battle, the emotions of combat are surprisingly close to the surface, and the elation or terror of winning or retreating are easy to summon.

Folks, if you've never tried it, you're really missing out. While it may be a long time before an event as close to the essence of the period comes along, there are many fine events with opportunities to find out what you've been missing.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

How can one try to recreate the 1860s and yet not "act"?

Honestly, when it comes to portraying racism, war crimes, threats, violence and so forth, I really wouldn't want to attend events where people didn't have to act.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Hank, two things come to my mind when I read your message.

First, I suspect a number of folks aren't really acting in major parts of their impression. With so many areas of first person out there for all of us to research -- including, for example, the arcanae of army paperwork, which most soldiers then would know something about -- I have to wonder why anyone would focus on roles that instead, for example, enable them to drop the "n bomb" or shoot POWs. Yet I've seen both more often than I have discussions of reports or fines for losing equipment. Armies are bureaucracies that kill, and while they only kill part of the time, the bureaucratic component is always there, though you wouldn't know it from most reenactments.

Second, I think that the words "act" and "performance," while they have clear dictionary definitions, mean subtly different things to different folks. To get by in an office environment with many different kinds of roles and personalities for 30+ years, I had to tailor my words and actions quite a bit. But it wasn't acting to me -- it was a real life job that required me to understand certain jargons and negotiate the needs and objectives of a variety of colleagues. To me, first person at an event just doesn't feel all that different from what I had to do every day at work. Except I generally enjoy it more.

None of this is meant to take issue with you. I'm just trying to explain what I meant.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

When people say that, I don't understand what they mean. How can a normal person ever, even in theory, not "act" (pretend to be someone other than oneself) during a reenactment, without being inaccurate a lot of the time?

How can one try to recreate the 1860s and yet not "act"?

Honestly, when it comes to portraying racism, war crimes, threats, violence and so forth, I really wouldn't want to attend events where people didn't have to act.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

One can "act", to use your term and create a historical persona without having to convey a detail rich, fabricated back story, theatrics or overly engage in dialogue which relies on such a made up story as its foundation. Irrespective of one’s historic and topical mastery of the impression, dialogue based on the probable, often hypothetical can only be responded to in the probable and so and so on...which begins to drift ever farther from the known historical record.

For example, with a "tool box" chocker full of period equine (insert any) knowledge, I can engage in first person conversation at length and at a minimum, if ever, have to interject anything fabricated, made up, supposed, probable, contrived or remotely close to performance art. In response to such dialogue, I focus on making my retort and the resulting interchange as P/ E / C and generic as possible in the immediate, thus avoiding conveying and demanding a response which is made up and unsupported.

Christopher Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[john duffer]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

" But unless reenactors believe they're really trying to kill the enemy, ......."

To me the term "act" implies doing it for an audience and thus implies a little bit of deliberate fakery or illusion. I've not been a huge fan of 1st person, I've had way too much of 'what did you do before the war", "hey captain, when are the replacement main springs being delivered", etc - however, while commanding a company or battalion I've been able to totally be immersed in the moment on several occasions. I didn't think I was really killing the enemy but only because it didn't come to mind, I was just trying to beat them and approached it like it was deadly real without thinking it through. In McCudden's FIVE YEARS IN THE ROYAL FLYING CORPS he mentions an occasion where he got close enough to a German plane to see the pilot and thought "By Jove, there's a man in it' !!" and I think that was where I was at.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Hallo!

IMHO, and heresies...

Reenacting and living history is, a form of Make Believe and Play Acting.

Meaning...

Putting on a uniform (or civilian clothing) of the Past, taking up tools, weapons, or "accessories," and pretending to be or represent or portray or present, or engage in simulations or emulations of Life in the Past, etc., etc., IS acting like a person from the Past.

We are not, ever, actual people from 1861-1865. Never, ever.

IMHO still...

I believe where the opposition if not rejection of the "acting" connotation and denotation comes into play is in self-defining the Performance Art of reenacting/living history where acting is:

1. taking on the role, character, and identity of a real, made up, or composite person and "presenting" that performance to an audience

2. and is not just a bunch a guys or gals or kids wearing funny costumes and shooting blanks at one another for recreation, sport, pasttime, avenues or academic windows into researching more about actual Life in the Past and actual History.

Ultimately, whether one takes on a persona, as a character with Period lines to be delivered, one is a costumed and propped-out actor on a stage where the "audience" can be as large as a spectating public or as small as one's pard next in line. Even saying not a word, one is performing the live visual interpretation, visualization, and presentation of a Civil War era person.
Just not having "lines," or "dialogue" does not eliminate the Performance Art. Or remove the actors from the "stage" of the reenactment or event where they play:

1. for themsleves, and/or
2. for their pards, and/or
3. for their fellow reenactors, and/or
4. for a spectating public

Others' heresies, and mileage, but not acting, will vary....

CHS

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

I think that using the term "performance" is actually going to mislead some folks, especially those who are afraid of immersion events.

I have only "acted" a few times at events because something in the situation required it.

You know, I don't care if I "mislead" people. I'm tired of trying to pretend the hobby is something it isn't.

There's bad acting, of course. And like Chris Rideout said, it's easy to spot. I'm certainly not advocating bad acting, though people make mistakes and it's a learning curve, so I'm not going to condemn someone who's trying.

In fact, I believe the fastest way to get rid of bad acting is to require someone to keep doing it for 48 hours, rather than tell them to stop. They'll wear down. They'll give up on the histrionics and start behaving in a way that seems more realistic, because nobody in real life behaves that way for that long. Pretty soon, they'll go from bad acting to good acting.

There are narrow definitions of acting: reciting lines, being on stage in front of an audience, etc. I'm not limiting "acting" to those narrow definitions, because others outside the hobby don't limit it either.

But seriously, unless you actually believe you're living in the 1860s or that you literally step out of time machine when you enter events or something, you're acting as if it's the 1860s. Curt Schmidt gets it.

I don't know why there's so much resistance in the hobby to admitting that.

Why do I care? I think if we can get beyond the resistance, maybe more people will appreciate that yes, it really does matter if a reenactor pulls out a modern camera or starts talking about the internet on purpose, the same way we'd howl if an actor did it on screen in the middle of a historical movie. Events can be way more than socializing in funny clothes or demonstrating old-time tactics or backpacking with really inconvenient gear. We also don't have to invest four or five days of packing, travel, and theme camping to settle for brief "magic moments" that last half an hour. If that's all I got out of the hobby, I would have quit years ago.

If people are happy with how they're reenacting right now, great. I'm certainly not saying this is what everyone does want or should want. There are more than enough events and activities and philosophies to go around for everyone.

But I've been to events where people make elaborate apologies for the slightest things--safety related stuff, the setting isn't pristine, etc. etc. as if that's what people like me care about and I'll be deeply offended by the power lines overhead or something. Nonsense. You can easily ignore power lines. You can't ignore someone in your face who's not acting like it's the 1860s anymore and doesn't want you to, either.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Bill Cross]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

You know, I don't care if I "mislead" people. I'm tired of trying to pretend the hobby is something it isn't.

Hank, I think you and I are closer to the same definition, but I am always interested in bringing new people into the activities and events I feel are worth attending. I won't say "better," because for some, a big mainstream event with beer, ball and battle is just fine and they're happy as pigs in shit. It's not my place to condemn or criticize, and I won't live long enough to profit from doing either.

But over the years I've been in the hobby (and they're almost entirely campaigning), I have found that if you dispel some of the myths about sleeping on the ground and humping in your gear, a surprising number of fellers will come to a CPH event and have a good-enough time to come back to others. I know that recruiting newbies has never been your mission or even interest, and the implacable disinterest you have in whether someone has a good time or not is part of what makes you an asset at any event.

I on the other hand have over the years tried to bring more folks into the fold, if you will.

As for preventing anachronisms or folks from breaking the moment, the only effective way I've found to do that is by enforcing some strict regs about banning cameras in the ranks or shushing people who break into modern talk. At events I've worked on, I usually include a rule that if you persistently break first person or are found with a camera on your person, you WILL BE ASKED TO LEAVE. It has worked in the past. I don't think you can persuade some folks to participate, you have to require it. I'm probably more draconian on that than perhaps even you are. My philosophy has always been to encourage and reduce anxiety about immersion, but to brook no deliberate infractions.

Sadly, not all event organizers share my philosophy, as the cameras in plain sight at "Bummers" (for example) show. I know guys want to have photos of their events and themselves, which is why I've had Julio at some of the events I've worked on. He's imperfect (period dress, modern cameras), but will stay out of the way if asked to. It beats having a flash go off in your face when someone in the next column turns around to "capture my Civil War moment."

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

With so many areas of first person out there for all of us to research -- including, for example, the arcanae of army paperwork, which most soldiers then would know something about -- I have to wonder why anyone would focus on roles that instead, for example, enable them to drop the "n bomb" or shoot POWs.

I think you and I tend to attend different kinds of events, and I wonder if a reenactor's view of what "first person" or "accurate behavior" is, is skewed by that? I've run into a few people who fit exactly the type you're talking about--I know just what you mean--but they tend to be at what I'd call high mainstream or less accurate event.

Can't say I've ever shot a POW, but I tend to do poor southern roles, so I can't really avoid the "n bomb" (unless an event or reenactor requests it not be used--I usually check if I think it'll be an issue). At the last event, I was talking with a reenactor portraying a white woman well above my station and blacks had just got the right to vote post-war, so the topic came up. Cracked me up how I'd say "nigger" but she'd say "negra." I love little period nuances like that.

Second, I think that the words "act" and "performance," while they have clear dictionary definitions, mean subtly different things to different folks. To get by in an office environment with many different kinds of roles and personalities for 30+ years, I had to tailor my words and actions quite a bit. But it wasn't acting to me -- it was a real life job that required me to understand certain jargons and negotiate the needs and objectives of a variety of colleagues.

Definitely, they mean different things. You bring up an interesting point, right out there on the thin edge between "acting" and "not acting." If a yes-man acts like he agrees with his boss when he doesn't, is that "acting"? The answer doesn't really matter, but yes, I'd say that's exactly the level of "realistic-seeming behavior,"--for lack of a better word--that defines good acting in reenacting. If the boss detects any latent hostility, that's a big problem, so it's got to be very believable.

The other part--tailoring what one says--well, I'm not sure that's what I'm talking about when it comes to reenacting. If one decides not to bring up religion at the office because it's a hot topic, or to give a non-committal answer when asked about how one voted, I'm not sure it's the same as deciding not to sing a modern song or to switch an anecdote to include "wagons" and "telegraphs" at a reenactment. That takes us down the route of "just don't say anything modern" or "just be yourself only in the 1860s."

Don't get me wrong, I think that's better than nothing, and it's a great starting point, but it's a glass-half-empty rather than a glass-half-full thing. It reminds me of the little kid who visited a museum and asked the interpreters, "You don't have TV? You don't have radio? You don't have etc....? What do you do? How boring." He pictured life in the past as just like life today, only without stuff.

Maybe that's what you mean by the toolkit, and we're both actually picturing the same thing--having a large enough store of period knowledge and experience, so portraying the 1860s feels more like pouring half a glass of water in, than dumping half a glass of water out.

None of this is meant to take issue with you. I'm just trying to explain what I meant.

Ditto. Personally, I'm enjoying the discussion and the sharing of different viewpoints greatly.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Hallo!

I believe where the opposition if not rejection of the "acting" connotation and denotation comes into play is in self-defining the Performance Art of reenacting/living history where acting is:

1. taking on the role, character, and identity of a real, made up, or composite person and "presenting" that performance to an audience

2. and is not just a bunch a guys or gals or kids wearing funny costumes and shooting blanks at one another for recreation, sport, pasttime, avenues or academic windows into researching more about actual Life in the Past and actual History.

CHS

I don't see opposition or rejection here at all. I dont see fear or reluctance, but respect of the presentation of sound historical fact to an audience. Most folks dig an audience. Perhaps too much. I think what is offered here is pure good faith caution and wise counsel by even minded men in this thread (not me) about the slippery slope and more times than not, plain bogusness of "acting" turned away from the hard historical record and into the realm of well-intentioned probabilities.

No different than any other aspect or discipline here in the deep end of the pool. Fill yer tool box full o' duly researched Man / Method / Materials and go about your duties in that context. You do not have to convey some historical ditty or back story brilliance with ev'r breath of the event.

Spend time mastering known, research supported speech patterns, greetings, courtesies, slang, curse words, colloquialisms, societally popular cultural aspect and other period mannerisms....and as importantly the context and company in which they are used.... that can be found digging in the words of the original "cast" itself.

The first person will flow.

C. Rideout
Tampa, Florida
Residing in a veritable Back Story Desert (Needing Federal Grant)