skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Solo performers had distinct and interesting responsibilities as compared with performance groups.
First, as a solo performer, they had time to shine while in the performance. They did not have to share the stage with anyone and if the show was a success it was all because of them. They were able to expand their careers easier because their success was not dependent on others. They also didn't have to share any of the profits from the show with anyone but themselves, which increased their abilities to earn and stay in business.
Being a solo performer made logistics like travel much easier to deal with. They could travel on their own schedule, it was cheaper to house them and easier to mooch if they needed to. They didn't have to worry about any one else's preferences and could go wherever they wanted to go without other considerations. That provided them with a great amount of freedom in picking their performances.
There was also a lot of protesting and negative attention from anti-theatrical groups. Being solo, they were lower on the radar from those groups because they weren't 'troupes' and could skirt any attention from them. Being able to avoid those anti-theatrical groups also allowed for higher attendance at their shows since people weren't afraid of negative repercussion from the groups that they might face by attending shows of a troupe in the groups' sights.
With those types of advantages, its a wonder that any performer worked in a group.
Gesture is always something important to consider when ever you are in new situations. I emphasize gestures in my public speaking classes to make sure my students are aware of what they are doing. It is easy to forget what you are doing and to make inappropriate gestures that undermine what you are trying to convey. Learning to control gestures was important for Renaissance writers as well.
Gesture served as a gate keeping exercise in society. It helped to distinguish between the nouveau riche and the new money. Since society required different social graces (like a courtesy) in higher settings. These gestures when performed over a lifetime were smooth and fluid, but when performed by a new comer (new money) they were jerky or awkward. So those in society could tell the difference between the two groups simply based upon their gestures.
Gestures are also an important way to train and discipline your body. That discipline shows control and dedication to an action. Free control of the body has been a deterrent factor in society for a long time and still is today. When a person shows control and discipline of the body they are showing that they are capable of that discipline in other areas of their life. It makes them more trustworthy and more capable in the eyes of another. That control can provide more opportunities.
The disciplined control of gesture also shows a deeper passion for the work being presented. The gesture represents more than simply the raw emotion that can control the performance if its not kept in check. The gesture helps to amplify the emotion within the performance and directs that emotion into a fluid and specific direction. It actually increased the purposeful emotions and the passion of the performance.
So even today, gesture is an important factor in showing control and discipline and for creating that mood of entitlement. Without proper gestures, your message can become strained and unrecognizable and could have the opposite effect on your audience.
Our western history has given women a specific role within society. Until recent history, women were expected to hold specific roles in the support of society. These roles urged chaste behavior and personal control.
Being an actress usually requires understanding the human condition. Women, like men, are full of weakness. In certain roles, a women would be required to be naked are partial naked, depict promiscuity, or display other 'un-ladylike' behaviors. The women in this field were not portraying their chaste and personal control and were considered to be in violation of the norms.
Public readers were able to share in a similar way to the actress. They could comment through their performances on the human condition and they could share histories. They could, however, refrain from undesirable behaviors. Being a reader provided that creative outlet and important chronicle without violating the norms of the society.
What makes a renaissance man? In our times, calling someone a renaissance man refers to his vast skills. My dad is a hobbyist. Every few months he'll pick up a new hobby or refine a previous one. Because of that diverse interest, he's helpful in a lot of situations and I call on him for help a lot, along with others of course. I've heard others refer to him as a renaissance man.
Leonardo da Vinci is by far considered to be the most popular example of a renaissance man, after all it's the only term that could encompass his vast skills. No other single moniker could show his true skill. Writer, painter, artist, inventor, they all leave out something that made his mark on history that much stronger.
Castiglione argued that a renaissance man must be able to entertain, telling a good story in particular. This trait tends to be forgotten in our pursuit of the modern renaissance man, but I don't think it's left out. After all, my dad has to be able to explain how to help. He has to be enjoyable to be around if people want his 'amateur' help. He does tell good stories.
It makes sense that Castiglione valued a good story. I think for similar reasons as the people around my dad, but also because entertainment was scarce. Histories were still, for the most part, shared orally. Its better to spend your time listening to someone entertaining than to have to listen to someone drone on and on about a history you know you should learn.
I agree. This world needs more renaissance men, ones who can hold our interest!
In the world of literature, it rarely matters how the material was performed or presented when it was first imagined. Of course, if it was performed multiple times over generations before being recorded, in writing most likely, then the message could have changed. Other than that fluctuation, literary scholars usually care about the writings and messages shared. As a performance scholar though, I understand the importance of presentation toward the meaning of the piece.
The way a performance takes place creates meanings of its own within the text. So in the world of the Rhapsodes, how important were the performances to their messages? The answer is that the importance resided in the motivation to perform the way they did. Since video tapes had not been invented yet, we only have written works to tell us of the Rhapsodes. That makes the performative aspects of their performances much more difficult to understand. I believe that the Rhapsodes did not perform long monologues, but most likely performed song-like chants.
These chants were easier to remember. Think back to how easily it is to remember a song you heard on the radio or a jingle on a TV commercial, those with rhythmic beats, even if the words themselves are spoken, are much easier to remember than purely spoken words. This memorable impact would also lead to involvement from the audience. The audience singing or chanting in unison would lead to common bonds and communitas. The joining in unison would lead to a cultural memory instead of individual memories creating a longer lasting impact.
This chanting leads me to believe that the Rhapsodes understood the importance of their performances. It is most likely why we are still taking about them so many centuries down the road.
Welcome to my blog for History of Performance!
