Like Mr. Geist, I too am interested in the changes in living history
presentations over the years, as well as the various techniques of first-
person interpretation that have been evolving along with those
presentations.
Congratulations are in order for Christy Coleman and the rest of the staff
at Colonial Williamsburg for intelligently staging a slave auction and
persevering with its production through what must have been a
nerve-wracking
experience.
The NY Times ran a piece on the event that was particularly irksome on
several accounts, including choice of terminology and omission of (IMHO)
important facts.
In their article, "Tears and Protest at Mock Slave Sale," Oct. 11, 1994,
the
Times covered the event as if it were an isolated special program, rather
than part of three whole days of programming as part of "Publick Times,"
thereby overly sensationalizing the context of the presentation. Neither
did
they mention that the auction included a follow-up question and answer
period, which would have helped underscore that the intent of the scene
was
not "entertainment." (These two points from an eyewitness--I was not at
the
event personally.)
The reporter's choice of descriptors did little to help the readers'
understanding of the intent of living history museums in presenting such
programming. The choice of the term "Mock" in the headline was a poor one,
since the word is loaded with other connotations. "Re-creation" or
"Enacted"
would have been much more suitable terms. The reporter also described the
slave auction participants as "actors" and "actresses," instead of
"historical interpreters," "character interpreters," "roleplayers,"
"first-
person interpreters," or other terms that reflect their status as museum-
related staff.
Ah well, at least they had the decency to reveal the fact that the leader
of
the demonstration recanted his initial objections against the portrayal
after viewing it.
Stacy
Stacy F. Roth | [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 383 | Voice: (215) 943-1232
Langhorne, PA 19047 |
|
