![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hrjSaturday evening: And So We Beat On . . . Sponsor: Societas Fontibus Historiae Medii Aevi Inveniendis, vulgo dicta,
“The Pseudo Society” Organizer: Richard R. Ring, Univ. of Kansas
Presider: Richard R. Ring
Le Morte Darthur? New Theories on the Death of the Once and Future King
Elizabeth Nielsen, Northwestern Univ.
Swynke, Stryve, and Swyve: A Medievalist’s Guide to Employment beyond Academia
Elan Justice Pavlinich, Univ. of South Florida
Constant Garble’s “Mid-Evil History,” Discovered and Unedited by Richard Kay
Richard Kay, Univ. of Kansas
No detailed notes on these, as they are generally more performance art than content. The first two papers were clever, funny, and visual. The last was, unfortunately, tedious and far too long and not actually very funny.
Sunday 8:30 -- Skipped this session to have breakfast with some of Lauri's friends instead and then to go get my Sunday-pickup books in the exhibitors' room. Finished up the Sunday 10:00 session with the following.
Session 561: Reconstruction and Reenactment and Their Role in Recovering History (A Roundtable)
Sponsor: Higgins Armory Museum
Organizer: Kenneth Mondschein, Higgins Armory Museum Presider: Kenneth Mondschein
A roundtable discussion with Michael A. Cramer, Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY; Lisa Evans, Independent Scholar; Darrell Markewitz, Wareham Forge; Greg Mele, Freelance Academy Press; and Neil Peterson, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. (addition? Tom Leoni?)
(There were some pre-circulated questions for consideration. I won't be giving specific attributions.)
How does re-enactment and reconstruction interact with academia?
Conflicted relationship. Both sides can disparage the other based on cross-purposes. Re-enactment seen as sloppy, play, for personal gratification vs. academia seen as "important" by society. Academics seen as rigid in approach, stuffy, hide-bound. What constitutes "serious"? Scientific experimentation in historic technologies can be very rigorous in practice but is often self-supported rather than institutionally supported. Amateur access to sources can be limited and expensive. Re-enactors can find the well poisoned due to lumping together of all non-academics. Living history museums and groups more open to amateur support/input/interaction e.g., expert labor for the "Plymouth jacket" project. Academia is seeing a shift in attitude more recently with the general rise in interest in "experiential history" as opposed to classical names-and-dates history. Keys to cred with academia is familiarity with and understanding of historic sources. Beware of "identity" traps (e.g., simple membership in a group like SCA does not convey expertise). Individual experts in re-enactment groups can establish bridges.
In the field of historic combat studies, the rise of "commercialized" historic combat can undermine the reputation of re-enactors rather than enhance it, despite the opportunities for greater popularization. E.g., Battle of Nations became reflection of modern geo-politics, not historic re-creation.
How do practical modern considerations affect the results of attempts at re-enactment/re-creation?
How is the activity presented/advertised? When interacting with academia, what is claimed about the activity? The "so what?" question. Different faces to consider: re-enactment as pop culture is different from as historic research (post-modern aproach). Historic combat re-enactments can be safe or accurate but not both, so how is this presented? For that matter, do we understand the intent and purpose of historic combat manuals in their own context? (E.g., judicial duels vs tournament combat.) Interactive historic re-creation studies can help support humanities programs by drawing public interest/participation. Limitations of available materials/resources also affect nature of outcomes. Re-creation may be more "experiential" than "experimental". What is the purpose? How do you evaluate success or failure? Is the intent for the re-enactor to experience/understand historic factors, or to determine/discover "truths" about historic artifacts/practices? Beware of jargon, but must talk to your audience in language they respect/understand. Understand the difference between "could have" and "did", between "a way this could have been done" and "the way they did it". Familiarity with the historic/academic background is essential for being able to communicate this and sort through the possibilities. Sarlo's [sp?] re-creation of theatrical court performances (masques) with an attempt to re-create external social/power relationships among the performers, not simply going through the lines/motions. Done in academia using university hierarchy to stand for court hierarchy, done similarly in SCA context using existing in-game relationships to stand for court relationships. Similarly "early music/theater" peformance approaches attempting to re-create original performance styles and methods. Early Music movement originally driven by amateurs (similarly to re-enactment movement) with similar motivations/purposes and now part of the establishment. While specific re-enactment groups are unlikely to evolve into "respectable" movements, they have already been breeding grounds for small specialized movements that have done valuable work, e.g., with academic historic combat studies.
It's easy to see how the addition of experiential history can fill seats in the classroom, but what are the responsibilities for re-enactors as educators of the public outside the structure of the academy?
No "quality control" on public education by re-enactors. Danger of getting mixed up in the political uses of history (e.g., Viking re-enactment >> white power groups). Museums/living history sometimes lose cred by too much use of popularized history to get people in the door. "Remember: Hollywood is the real enemy!" Importance of equivocation and contextualization. [Fear! Uncertainty! Doubt!] When dealing with the public, no filters for what knowledge/understanding/interest your audience brings, and thus on what understanding they take away. Academia's purpose is to raise questions, not necessarily to provide answers. Re-enactors need to beware of presenting themselves as having all the answers; leave room for uncertainty and further understanding.
And that's the end of the conference. Stay tuned for the book haul! (Oh, and I realized at some point that I may still have some books left unblogged from last year -- either that or I've forgotten blogging them.)
“The Pseudo Society” Organizer: Richard R. Ring, Univ. of Kansas
Presider: Richard R. Ring
Le Morte Darthur? New Theories on the Death of the Once and Future King
Elizabeth Nielsen, Northwestern Univ.
Swynke, Stryve, and Swyve: A Medievalist’s Guide to Employment beyond Academia
Elan Justice Pavlinich, Univ. of South Florida
Constant Garble’s “Mid-Evil History,” Discovered and Unedited by Richard Kay
Richard Kay, Univ. of Kansas
No detailed notes on these, as they are generally more performance art than content. The first two papers were clever, funny, and visual. The last was, unfortunately, tedious and far too long and not actually very funny.
Sunday 8:30 -- Skipped this session to have breakfast with some of Lauri's friends instead and then to go get my Sunday-pickup books in the exhibitors' room. Finished up the Sunday 10:00 session with the following.
Session 561: Reconstruction and Reenactment and Their Role in Recovering History (A Roundtable)
Sponsor: Higgins Armory Museum
Organizer: Kenneth Mondschein, Higgins Armory Museum Presider: Kenneth Mondschein
A roundtable discussion with Michael A. Cramer, Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY; Lisa Evans, Independent Scholar; Darrell Markewitz, Wareham Forge; Greg Mele, Freelance Academy Press; and Neil Peterson, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. (addition? Tom Leoni?)
(There were some pre-circulated questions for consideration. I won't be giving specific attributions.)
How does re-enactment and reconstruction interact with academia?
Conflicted relationship. Both sides can disparage the other based on cross-purposes. Re-enactment seen as sloppy, play, for personal gratification vs. academia seen as "important" by society. Academics seen as rigid in approach, stuffy, hide-bound. What constitutes "serious"? Scientific experimentation in historic technologies can be very rigorous in practice but is often self-supported rather than institutionally supported. Amateur access to sources can be limited and expensive. Re-enactors can find the well poisoned due to lumping together of all non-academics. Living history museums and groups more open to amateur support/input/interaction e.g., expert labor for the "Plymouth jacket" project. Academia is seeing a shift in attitude more recently with the general rise in interest in "experiential history" as opposed to classical names-and-dates history. Keys to cred with academia is familiarity with and understanding of historic sources. Beware of "identity" traps (e.g., simple membership in a group like SCA does not convey expertise). Individual experts in re-enactment groups can establish bridges.
In the field of historic combat studies, the rise of "commercialized" historic combat can undermine the reputation of re-enactors rather than enhance it, despite the opportunities for greater popularization. E.g., Battle of Nations became reflection of modern geo-politics, not historic re-creation.
How do practical modern considerations affect the results of attempts at re-enactment/re-creation?
How is the activity presented/advertised? When interacting with academia, what is claimed about the activity? The "so what?" question. Different faces to consider: re-enactment as pop culture is different from as historic research (post-modern aproach). Historic combat re-enactments can be safe or accurate but not both, so how is this presented? For that matter, do we understand the intent and purpose of historic combat manuals in their own context? (E.g., judicial duels vs tournament combat.) Interactive historic re-creation studies can help support humanities programs by drawing public interest/participation. Limitations of available materials/resources also affect nature of outcomes. Re-creation may be more "experiential" than "experimental". What is the purpose? How do you evaluate success or failure? Is the intent for the re-enactor to experience/understand historic factors, or to determine/discover "truths" about historic artifacts/practices? Beware of jargon, but must talk to your audience in language they respect/understand. Understand the difference between "could have" and "did", between "a way this could have been done" and "the way they did it". Familiarity with the historic/academic background is essential for being able to communicate this and sort through the possibilities. Sarlo's [sp?] re-creation of theatrical court performances (masques) with an attempt to re-create external social/power relationships among the performers, not simply going through the lines/motions. Done in academia using university hierarchy to stand for court hierarchy, done similarly in SCA context using existing in-game relationships to stand for court relationships. Similarly "early music/theater" peformance approaches attempting to re-create original performance styles and methods. Early Music movement originally driven by amateurs (similarly to re-enactment movement) with similar motivations/purposes and now part of the establishment. While specific re-enactment groups are unlikely to evolve into "respectable" movements, they have already been breeding grounds for small specialized movements that have done valuable work, e.g., with academic historic combat studies.
It's easy to see how the addition of experiential history can fill seats in the classroom, but what are the responsibilities for re-enactors as educators of the public outside the structure of the academy?
No "quality control" on public education by re-enactors. Danger of getting mixed up in the political uses of history (e.g., Viking re-enactment >> white power groups). Museums/living history sometimes lose cred by too much use of popularized history to get people in the door. "Remember: Hollywood is the real enemy!" Importance of equivocation and contextualization. [Fear! Uncertainty! Doubt!] When dealing with the public, no filters for what knowledge/understanding/interest your audience brings, and thus on what understanding they take away. Academia's purpose is to raise questions, not necessarily to provide answers. Re-enactors need to beware of presenting themselves as having all the answers; leave room for uncertainty and further understanding.
And that's the end of the conference. Stay tuned for the book haul! (Oh, and I realized at some point that I may still have some books left unblogged from last year -- either that or I've forgotten blogging them.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Renactment/Academia Interface
Date: 2014-05-12 02:26 pm (UTC)