I just sent another email that dealt with Actor/ reenactor, rather than rehash those arguments I wanted to try to come up with some suggestions for you actual situation.  As best as I can without knowing anything about your institution.

    It seems to me that arguing the title of the interpreters is really not where you should be placing your efforts.  Regardless of their title, that alone wont make it art.

   It seems to me the difference on that score is that to the Historian, the message is of utmost importance.  To the artist, how that message is conveyed is the importance.

   Therefore, to convince your commision that you are putting up an Art program, means the performance itself, should become the emphasis.  Not the character or the history.  Advertise the "actor" by name portraying such and such.

    Another idea might be to make your training program part of the art.  Rather than employee training, you are providing theatrical education for atmospheric improvisational theatre.

    You may also find that you have some art you may be able to interpret or teach, or better yet have an artistic character to portray.

Ron Carnegie

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: james schulte 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:38 AM
  Subject: RENACTORS OR ACTORS


  My fellow colleagues,

                          Recently our Cultural and "Heritage" Commission here in Salem County New Jersey decided to not give funding to History groups and all their monies went to the arts. This has been a seven year battle and the group I volunteer with were the last of the history groups to receive funding. Last year with the same grant proposal they received $3200 of approximately $10,000 a year spending plan, so they are not a big group.I requested the critiques from this years grant and have a question I want to put out to you all.

  Here it is: The critique said are they actors or reenactors?

   

  I looked up in the dictionary  the definitions of these words and they are as follows:

  Actor- someone who acts out a part on stage, Broadway, or anywhere for public entertainment

  Reenactor-someone who acts out a part from history's past or a period

   

  I have used actor as opposed to reneactor because the group is seeking for art grants, to me they are the same

  Your comments both ways are greatly appreciated and will be shared with the commission unless you decide otherwise

  Thanks 

  Jim

  ========================================================= Important Subscriber Information: 
  The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes). 

  If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes). 

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).