Final Bloggy

The evolution of Performance in literature has moved from its origins through eighteenth century English elocution, being the study of formal speaking with an emphasis on reading literature. Then moving into oral interpretation and to what we know now in the discipline of Performance studies. Edwards indicates that the height of this was around 1914 when Elocutionary training was gaining tremendous respectability in US colleges and universities. (144) When the discipline made the transition from Interpretation to Performance studies in 1991, scholars such as Richard Schechner (2002)” have begun to speak of a two brand model of performance studies pedagogy in American universities: with literature,” Literature is the foundation of what performance is built from.

Literature fits into what we do but will evolve to the use of “text” and not just literature, while we will still honor what lit does, text will incorporate more. Edwards, “names a shift from studying literature in performance to performing texts of culture, identity, and experience.” We see this indicated through the personal narrative. Literature will always support and be a beneficiary part of Performance studies, but it finds enhancement through supported texts. In rhetorical studies, we discuss what is and what is not a ‘text’ by means of something that is analyzed and interpreted, be it a picture, movie, song etc..

While the readings discuss the rises and falls of Performance in Literature, it is my own observation that it is alive and while not in the same context as its original origin, still serving its purpose in our field. Edwards discusses the, excitement of students as they adapt literature for stage performance in the class room saying, “they arrive in class ready to take performance beyond literature.” Currently I am serving as fascinator for an undergrad group that is putting up a performance for the first time. While we as performance studies scholars argue about the living/dying/in ICU status of Literature in our field, our undergrads and other first time performers in our field are taking the foundation of Literature and constantly breathing life into it. Watching this group of undergrads while I am conducting my own version of Godard’s, “Research in the form of spectacle,” I’ve never seen Literature in any real danger of dying off in our discipline, (hell, I didn’t even know it was sick!) Perhaps it is because we require our students to take COMM 2060 Performance in Literature as a basis to what we do, as opposed to having them jump right into Performance Art, or Theory. In that class they find the basics, and learn the disciplines origins there. In TFS’s performance they have a basis of literature, but draw from a smorgasbord of other “texts” to support their statement. These are students who are not even three months removed from that COMM 2060 class where we taught them the basis. I suppose this argument is about ownership and with just interpretation of literature, while there is some elements of ownership, the performance does not entirely belong to you. In performance, when we do what we do, when done correctly, we should demonstrate a heightened understanding of the text or topic. A wises elder in this field once told me you must know the “rules” before you break them. Moving beyond literatature means breathing new life into text, its not cutting the life support cord on Literature. We can’t. But we can enhance it.

Tres'

1. What the socio-cultural function of the feasts of Corpus Christi? How did these festivals serve as celebration of “The body.”? What socio-political groups interests were served by the festivities?

The functions of the feast of the Corpus Christi serves in celebration of the Body of Christ. Socially, those that were in attendance were of middle and upper class, and upon entry displayed a hierarchy of importance starting with the Clergy and other city dignitaries, and then followed by working class, i.e. sheriff, aldermen and the like. This sort of pageantry, was displayed to reify their own status by putting it on display.

The celebration of the body was that of Corpus Christi in a literal sense, but furthermore, as a sense where we find a connection with the self and the supernatural. With Christ we find that the celebration of Corpus Christi was to commemorate the resurrection of Christ, and essentially the power of life in the human body. Here we see unison of the body and the spirit. When one recalls this, they are called to remember Lacanian Mirror theory, that of the two selves being one of the symbolic and the real. Lacan talks about how there is a moment where the we as human beings recognize that those two entities, while different, are of the same body. Going back to the Body and Corpus Christi, the celebration helps in turn reify a connection within the celebrations with their own self and spirituality. In simple terms, it allows people to connect with the body, through this performance, they remembered and are reminded of their own struggle.

What is also important to note on such holidays, (Paging Victor Turner) is that the importance of practicing the ritual/holiday/celebration/event is that it serves as time mile markers in life. While participating in the activities, we are embracing a culture but at the same time we can look do self reflection on our roles in that event. When I think of an event that is ritualistic (And often times bawdy) I think of Petit Jean. It is a significant rite of passage for any student who is interested in performance and often the gateway event to this discipline. A tradition that has been going on for over 30 years, it is passed on though from our mentors (Taylor, Allison, Trudeau) and from their mentors as well (Mary Francis HopKins, The bowmans) . Each year, we play different roles depending on our seniority and status, but each year it is a mile marker of progress, a place/event that is consistent in traditions in an ever-changing world.

#2

1. Performers like the scop, gulsar, or jongleur, which was the most important skill—memory or invention? Explain Why? Did the spread of literacy change the balance between these two skills?

While both are important it is of my opinion that memory was of stronger importance in terms of skill. Conquergood discusses that, “There is no record of any scop ever dying for something he said in performance, where as many a man laid down his life for what he uttered in boast, or worse, lived out of a wretched existence in exile because he failed to live up to his boast.” This particular quote stands out ot me for two reasons.

In terms of the importance of memory in performance, Turner says that “By their performances ye shall know them.” This idea can be seen in several of the themes from this week’s readings. Turner talks about the liminality of rituals in culture. He focuses on the “in between” stages of rituals and rites of passage. From this standpoint, one can argue that people are recognized or remembered by the performance, which in this case is the ritual, they have gone through. The ritual, being war, and that ritual being communicated by the boasting of the scop, gulsar and jongleurs. This is not to say that invention was not an important factor, but on the basis of the continuation of the retelling of lived memory or performances, memory, surpasses.

With the spread of literacy there is a slight dynamic shift in which is more prominent, while some literary critics and believe in invention or that the text can stand alone and speak for itself, those in this discipline, I believe should still stand in the basis of importance of memory. While literacy may reify the text there is still a stronger dynamic that comes from the practice and the actual retelling that can provide heavy influence on an audience.

H of P Week 1 on DQ's

Question 2. How did the Rhapsodes perform" Does it make any difference if they sand or spoke their texts? Why do you think this issue is raised by these Hargis and Bahn in their articles?

The rhapsodes performed by means of oral poetry. This meant a variety of things, either singing, telling jokes or just telling the story. The Rhapsodes also used variations of improvising to create their stories to illustrate the story.

While they are known as oral poets, they are best known for singing. This is not to say that they only sang, (See statement above) but the variation of technique allowed for a number of good things to happen. Singing, or speaking in a melodic tone, while nice to hear, is easy to remember and engaging to the audience. Also, singing, as opposed to just "saying the text" allows for a stronger comprehension of an entertainment value. If the text were just spoken, it reads alot like a lecture.

Question 3. What was the function of the Rhapsode in Greek Society? Whose interests were served by this performance format?

The purpose of the Rhapsode is to serve and inform the masses. In BC, (Before Cable) there was only one way to gain information and to be entertained. The Rhapsodes served the purpose of both, being both news caster and entertainer in the same time.

While many benefited from the work of the Rhapsodes, they are best suited for the general public. The public, who may not be as educated as the higher class, received their informaiton his way. While it can be noted that they used the rhapsodes to deliver information to the public, it appears that the upper classes could stand to benefit from this format in terms of controlling what the general public knows.

Blogo number uno.