Living History as Performance Art

[Bill Cross]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Hi Bill, I have to respectfully disagree with you that soldiers probably didn't talk about politics. From what I've read politics would have been a very important topic, especially in 1863, in Ohio.

Hi, Linda,

I misspoke. I did not mean that soldiers did not discuss politics at all, but that I think it unrealistic for us to conjure up political debate during an event as if soldiers sat around all the time debating politics. To use a modern example, Bill Rodman and I have very different political opinions, and when we drive together to events, we have long discussions about politics. But if I were living around Bill every day, after awhile I would know pretty much everything he believed (and he me), and we'd likely at that point discuss other things: the weather today, whether he'd heard from his wife back home, whether the new sergeant was going to work out or was likely to be disrespected.

Again, let me emphasize that most regiments were same-state men, and most companies were same-township men. And they lived cheek-by-jowl together EVERY DAY. So when the latest newspaper arrived, I'm sure there was much discussion about whatever issues were at-hand. But I am skeptical they were talking about Vallandignham all the time. I tend to think they talked about everyday matters. One of the reasons that firper events intimidate even good LHs is the notion they will need to "do homework" before attending, plus face the risk of being found wanting should conversation turn to matters on a subject they don't know about. I'm not talking about the fellers who have ZERO interest in the non-material aspects of the culture, but those who genuinely fear a firper event will either be corn-ball acting or like taking a history final.

As to the suggestion I'm not in favor of doing historical research, nothing could be further from the truth. Those who have attended events I've worked on know that I routinely set up a Yahoo Groups listserver that dispenses whatever historical information I can obtain to the participants. But I stand by my assertion that we can become fixated on documentation and get a false over-confidence that somehow we've "broken through" to a point where we've answered all the tough questions.

Finally, the notion that banning vests in the ranks is PEC is simply an absurdity that is not supported by history. It's like prohibitions against hat brass: in an effort to remove the hunting horns, Irish harps and other anachronistic or fabulous brass adornments that have crept into usage we often ignore the fact that some units did, in fact, have brass in a variety of manifestations. We can't have one ruling based on PEC and then have another one based on history; the two have to be in harmony. All reports I've seen seem to indicate the boys in the ranks LOVED the chance to be a bit of an individual with a unique vest.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

All reports I've seen seem to indicate the boys in the ranks LOVED the chance to be a bit of an individual with a unique vest.

Here is your chance to set the record straight and turn the PEC movement on its head (on which is perched a black beaverfelt flat top with grosgrain ribbon...more brim, than crown.)....post one of those reports.



CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Silas]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Timeout called by the home team.

Keep the discussion fact based with reasonable arguments based upon fact. When threads start getting personal or perceived to be such, some folks have a tendency to let their emotions kick into overdrive. Others push buttons to watch the reactions of others. Both things often cause the issuance of yellow infraction cards and the closing of threads by evil moderators LIKE ME.

Time in and back to the thread.

[Bill Cross]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Here is your chance to set the record straight and turn the PEC movement on its head... post one of those reports.

Why, thank you! What an opportunity!! A savior of the hobby, LOL!

Seriously, I didn't think this topic was in contention any longer. But you can read this account (http://vermonthistory.org/documents/...french1862.pdf) that states:

"in addition to an under shirt I wish you would send a vest that I can button to my neck, a dark colored hard times would be just the thing."

I have also uploaded five period photographs that should persuade you.

[flattop32355]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Same here. But when they say they're intimidated, well, I don't know what they want. The implication seems to be that I should try to be farbier to make them more comfortable.

While that implication is a definite possibility, it is only one possibility.

Others are that that person doesn't want to either mess things up for the others present, or to appear inadequate or improperly prepared in from of those folks. In some ways, it can be like a rookie actor plopped onstage with all veteran performers, some of whom are extremely well known to the public. It can be intimidating. It was for me the first time I attended a true cph event, only one year deep into the hobby: Higher standards of performance (supposedly) than I'd ever attempted, doing it solo, and names that were known as pillars of the CW reenacting community in large numbers. Some of that got stood on its head by the end of the event, but going in, the concerns were very, very real.

That was also true, to some extent, the first time we met, at our "Andersonville" weekend. Your reputation, and Linda's too, were prominent in my mind at the beginning. You're both well known for what you prefer to see and do during an event. The question was whether I could live up to my own expectations of "your" expectations or not. It may not have been going at it with Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor, but the tension was there, at the beginning. And the thoughts of such beginnings can be worrisome, or even terrifying, to some folks.

[flattop32355]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

The true mark of a FIRPER pro should be (lest to my distorted views on everything) the ability to NOT have to make stuff up and most importantly NOT set your fellow participants up with dialogue requiring a contrived response. In that spirit perhaps "received any letters from home" isn't stoking the time travel experience, it is the mark of easy / lazy interp ?

And yet one person's contrived dialogue can be another person's chance to enter into the conversation.

Contrived doesn't have to be limited to wild, extravagant statements or questions, unless that is how one is defining it. Depending upon that definition, "Do you think Lincoln will win in November?" and "How 'bout them Dawgs!" can be either equally incorrect or diametric opposites.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

And yet one person's contrived dialogue can be another person's chance to enter into the conversation.

Contrived doesn't have to be limited to wild, extravagant statements or questions, unless that is how one is defining it. Depending upon that definition, "Do you think Lincoln will win in November?" and "How 'bout them Dawgs!" can be either equally incorrect or diametric opposites.

Y'know, I keep thinking about the event you wrote of earlier in this thread, that we were both at, the Kentucky horse sale. You and I were portraying pretty ordinary people, about as generic and straightforward as one could expect, with views that were easily documented as typical of many Kentuckians and Ohioans of the period.

And then there was the Clay family: the girl whose parents were separating because her father had had an affair with a Russian ballet dancer; the woman who'd gone to Vicksburg to visit her husband in the army, only to have him killed during the seige, leaving her pregnant. We won't even go into the women's rights stuff, and the trips to California, and... I mean, hokey, right? Unbelievable?

Except... we were portraying the fictional people, and they were portraying the actual historic people.

Sometimes I wonder if we assume people were generic, only because we don't know enough about them. The rich leave more letters, diaries and memoirs by and about them, so we know their quirks 150 years later, but what if we knew that much about the poor? It seems that whenever I'm assigned a random name from the census and when I'm lucky enough to get more than a glimpse into their history, unique things start showing up against the background of typicality--Thoreau's idea that most men lead lives "of quiet desperation."

More important to realism, I think, is how one portrays unique people. Understatement is the key to realism, unless there's some historic or event-specific reason to cause drama. And sometimes there is--events are usually based around something interesting, though in this case it was the horse sale, not the private lives of the Clays.

So the Clay family didn't bring up any of those facts, except in the broadest subtlest allusions. As their hired hand, I certainly didn't bring up any of those facts to them. The closest we came to drama was when you told me where you fought in the war, and I realized that you and Mrs. Clay's first husband were both at Vicksburg on opposite sides, but I cautioned you not to mention that to her and you didn't and that was that. (By the way, was that planned or accidental? If accidental, it was an example of an odd coincidence that might genuinely occur. If planned, it was an example of potential drama that reenactors didn't pursue.)

I wonder sometimes if the emphasis on portraying generic people is really a shortcut for the more accurate goal of portraying unique individuals in more subtle and therefore more realistic ways.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[LindaTrent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Your reputation, and Linda's too, were prominent in my mind at the beginning.

If you want me to be totally honest, I get butterflies before every event wondering whether or not I can live up to others' expectations of me! I was listening to an interview of a singer a few days ago and she was asked when she quit being nervous about being on stage, and she said that she still gets nervous even after all these years of performing in front of a live audience; so the intimidation goes both ways. I worry that I won't live up to my reputation, that I'll let other reenactors down. One thing I've always loved about the hobby is that I can be someone that I'm not. I've found that when I portray an outgoing person that I am much more self confident than I am in real life. I have one character who is always outgoing and I hide behind her when I have to do modern day public speaking. :wink_smil

At the Andersonville event I decided to be less outgoing, which is why I couldn't convince myself to get up and visit anymore than I did. Though on the other hand, I'm not sure a resident of Andersonville would have gotten up and spent much more time than I did with you Yanks.

Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor

Hmm... if only I had their money. :money: I wonder if Liz still gets nervous in front of people?

Linda.

[flattop32355]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

(By the way, was that planned or accidental? If accidental, it was an example of an odd coincidence that might genuinely occur. If planned, it was an example of potential drama that reenactors didn't pursue.)

To be honest, it was totally contrived. You blind-sided me with the question, and I fell back upon the fact that I'm a member of the 30th OVI reeancting organization, who's battle history I know in basic terms, with some specifics. In that split second of delay that you may or may not have noticed, I determined that claiming the 30th as with whom I fought to be a reasonable answer, and ran with it. So, in effect, it was a contrivance built upon a contrivance. ;)

An example of the make believe becoming the believable when allowed to flow through the natural cadence of the period conversation in which we were engaged.

[Jim of The SRR]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Hi, Linda,

I did not mean that soldiers did not discuss politics at all, but that I think it unrealistic for us to conjure up political debate during an event as if soldiers sat around all the time debating politics. To use a modern example, Bill Rodman and I have very different political opinions, and when we drive together to events, we have long discussions about politics. But if I were living around Bill every day, after awhile I would know pretty much everything he believed (and he me), and we'd likely at that point discuss other things: the weather today, whether he'd heard from his wife back home, whether the new sergeant was going to work out or was likely to be disrespected.

.

I think Bill brings up a good point about human interactions. We all know with some of our good friends what topics you "agree to disagree on". So, do you think that topic would be discussed again among comrades? Probably not much? Maybe some friendly jabs at each other over differing viewpoints. Conversely, if you "agree" on a topic, you probably discussed it ad naseum and the topic had been exhausted and then littel discussed again. Unless, maybe newspaper or event occurs to reignite the topic (as Bill has pointed out).
I hear many new guys seem intimidated by first person. But, in effect I think that not saying much at all may be acceptable as well.

In regards to "performance art", I truly enjoy that aspect of the hobby. But, for me, I don't need people to be expert vocal actors. If I see a few guys huddled around a fire on a cold night, warming up some coffee, that is truly first person for me! The cash register anaology given originally in this thread describes what I am saying. As others having pointed out, the actors and audience are one in the same in many cases in our world.

In regards to fleshing out portrayals of real people, thsi can be tricky. As we only may know of the more dramatic things that occured in their lives, we may be called up to flesh out the more mundane parts of their lives. Would the person your playing curse when he/she spilt his coffee or would he/she remain calm? We have to accept some carte blanche when doing these portrayals. We are many times forced to fleshing out our first person characters without historical facts to back them up. Is it right? that is debatable. Butm if we have an event that covers many hours and requires soem first person interactions, we have littel choice but to fill out our characters we portray. I just try to keep things simple and not overact it.

If this is the type of activities and "performance art" you enjoy, I would encourage you to seek out events that revolve around this type of firper interactions. I will plug the upcoming "Struggles of Secession - Westville, GA 1863" event as wonderful opportunity for this type of deep firper. Where you don't need to be a Golden Globe winner, just take part in the activity you signed up for and that makes for a great show for the spectator and your fellow reenactors! Yes, the organizers have much work to do for these type sof events, but the participants in these type of events get to also play abigger role and have a bigger impact on the event thru their interactions, goals, roles and character they bring to the event.

Jim Butler

https://www.strugglesofsecession.com

SCAR www.scarreenactors.com

[Dale Beasley]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

What happened to the picture of the dead horse?

[Silas]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

It received as many votes as your submission, Dale.

This may be a broad and rambling thread, but please make an effort to keep the posts on topic.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

So when the latest newspaper arrived, I'm sure there was much discussion about whatever issues were at-hand. But I am skeptical they were talking about Vallandignham all the time. I tend to think they talked about everyday matters. One of the reasons that firper events intimidate even good LHs is the notion they will need to "do homework" before attending, plus face the risk of being found wanting should conversation turn to matters on a subject they don't know about. I'm not talking about the fellers who have ZERO interest in the non-material aspects of the culture, but those who genuinely fear a firper event will either be corn-ball acting or like taking a history final.

On politics or any topic, I think it's not so much planning or not planning to talk about it, but more being able to understand what people are talking about if the topic naturally comes up. Of course, if one doesn't know, one can just withdraw from the conversation or listen (with the goal, again, to keep the illusion alive that you're someone from the past), but the more of a common background everyone has, the more naturally things flow.

This thread is winding down (what else can be said?), but Linda mentioned she thought that Ohio soldiers couldn't vote until 1863, and we were looking it up, and she was right. They were only allowed to vote in 1863 in the gubernatorial election to help defeat Vallandigham.

In looking that up, I found the following and thought it was funny, the way it was worded. One doesn't often get sworn testimony on what soldiers talked about, LOL! :D

Specification 8th. In this, that he, the said Capt. B. F. Sells, 'D' Company, 122d Regt. G.V.I. [sic, O.V.I.], in the service of the U.S., did ply officers and men with arguments in favor of voting for Vallandigham, and did use the following language, to wit: Vallandigham is a loyal man, and I will vote for him, or words to that effect.

This at or near Martinsburg, Va., on or about the 14th day of August, 1862.
(signed) Orlando C. Farquar,
Capt. Co. G, 122d Regt. O.V.I.
Source

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Dale Beasley]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

Hank,
you right, it has gotten beat to death, but as I have have posted many times before, soldiers have not changed, keep them busy and first person just comes... Without acting.

[LindaTrent]

Re: Living History as Performance Art

I'm only replying to this thread because I feel as though I found something new and interesting, and I'll only come back if something new comes up. Otherwise, I'll bow out of this thread as well -- I love horses and don't wish to beat even a dead one anymore than I already have. :cry_smile

[referring to the Emancipation Proclamation, and keeping discipline in the troops]

Head-quarters Army of the Potomac, Camp Near Sharpsburg, Maryland, Oct. 7, 1862. General Order No. 163.

"Discussions by officers and soldiers concerning public measures determined upon and declared by the Government, when carried once beyond temperate and respectful expressions of opinion, tend greatly to impair and destroy the discipline and efficiency of troops, by substituting the spirit of political faction for that firm, steady, and earnest support of the authority of the Government, which is the highest duty of the American soldier. The remedy for political errors, if any are committed, is to be found only in the action of the people at the polls...
By order of Major-General McClellan." source

If I read this order correctly, it sounds as though there was such a debate on the Emancipation Proclamation that McClellan had to order a cease-fire on political debate in order to keep discipline in the troops.

"'The Soldiers 'Talking.'
A correspondent of the Portsmouth Tribune, writing from his regiment at Pocahontas, Tenn., under date of July 11th, says: 'There is some excitement over the candidates in the field for Governor of Ohio. There are a few Vallandigham men in the ranks. Political discussions naturally arise, and we frequently have some warm debating, but it is all very wrong. We are here to fight for the preservation of our liberty, and not to quarrel about politics..." Portsmouth [Ohio] Tribune, July 25, 1863. [source: Ancestry.com subscription required]

I'm not saying that soldiers were constantly talking about home, politics, hopes and dreams, slavery, etc., but I don't believe that it would be historically accurate to have them only talk about what they were doing, either.

Linda.